Britain is sleepwalking into an energy crisis

We need a Kate Bingham of energy to end the groupthink that has left us reliant on imported oil and gas

We are not moving fast enough to face up to the economic consequences of the Ukraine crisis. If money is the sinews of war, we are about to pull a hamstring.

The critical matter at hand is energy and, related to that foodstuffs, notably wheat as the European economy, with which we remain closely integrated, is dependent on Russia for basic commodities. The potential wheat shortage is easy to solve: make sure farmers sow more in coming weeks.

By contrast, energy is a highly complex market. Rather than hope something turns up – essentially the current policy – the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) should appoint an emergency energy task force to ensure security of supply and reduce prices.

One option would be to appoint a Dame Kate Bingham of energy, in the mode of the wonderful woman who led the vaccine task force. But if that is too politically difficult to organise, the secretary of state Kwasi Kwarteng could himself chair it and bring in the appropriate external expertise. One thing is for sure: those who presided over the current policy groupthink which created our dependence on imported oil and gas should have their icy fingers removed from the levers.

Such a task force would have to get to grips with the great legal tangle that has been erected which is not only restricting the approvals of new domestic supplies, from the North Sea to fracking in Lancashire, but putting off investors with the money and expertise to deliver it.

There are those who will say we should abandon the net zero target. I would caution against that. First, it is three decades off, second I cannot imagine a better advertisement for reducing our dependence on hydrocarbons than Russia’s conduct in Ukraine, and third it would be to pick an unnecessary fight with the scientists, lobby groups and others who are rightly worried about global warming.

It is the next few years we need to concentrate on. And that also means that all the Tomorrow’s World plans for hydrogen and nuclear should be supported, but only in the knowledge that these are of no relevance to the matter at hand: how we get through next winter and the one after without freezing to death, massive inflation and suing for peace with Vladimir Putin on economic grounds.

There are four pieces of legislation which need changing. First, a littleknown statutory instrument called the 2021 Carbon Budget has set Britain the fastest, most unrealistic carbon reduction target in the world: a 78 per cent reduction by 2035. This should be repealed. It is unachievable.

Second, the Climate Change Act needs amending so the Climate Change Committee – the Sage of energy – should be replaced by an Energy Security and Climate Committee with a dual mandate to reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons, but only after having also taken account of energy security, energy poverty and our economic competitiveness.

Third, the Bank of England should be ordered by the Treasury to suspend its carbon stress tests which currently mean bank lending is not available for North Sea and other projects.

Finally, the regulatory bar on fracking should be lifted. It will take some years to bring Lancashire production onstream and it may never be required. But it would be foolish to exclude it altogether.

It is easy for we armchair strategists to offer “common sense” advice. But equally, ordinary folk examining their electricity and gas bills, like Edmund Burke’s wise unlettered men, know we need to move faster to solve our energy crisis.

We must focus on how we get through next winter and the one after without freezing to death, massive inflation and suing for peace with Putin on economic grounds