Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

11. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Spring Budget 2024 on levels of block grant funding for Scotland.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

17. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Spring Budget 2024 on levels of block grant funding for Scotland.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

For once, I find myself in the unusual position of debating legislation that I do not intend to reject out of hand. I have to admit that I broadly welcome most of the measures in the Bill, particularly those relating to carbon capture and storage and hydrogen models. That said, I must put on record my objection to all the comments that have been made about nuclear. Nuclear is the only energy technology that has become more expensive rather than cheaper over the years, so talk of its making our bills less expensive is collective madness. We need to move away from that. As for the talk about small modular reactors, no design has even been approved for their implementation yet. I do not know how the competition can be judged when there is no approved design for SMRs, and I understand that the process that is going on will take at least another 18 months.

Another aspect of the Bill that I cannot get my head round is the fact that the so- called revising Chamber was deemed to be the right place in which to introduce it. That seems counterintuitive to me, but I will say to the Secretary of State that, if the other place was indeed deemed most appropriate for the purpose, the House should trust the five amendments that were made there and recommend that they should remain in the Bill. Let me say for the record that I support them.

The amendment that would prevent any new coalmines from being opened by the Coal Authority or its successors makes sense if we are serious about net zero. We cannot have the hypocrisy of lecturing developing countries about the use of coal while considering extracting coal ourselves. We cannot have the hypocrisy of Tory MPs’ decrying Germany for using coal while at the same time supporting the new Cumbrian coalmine. We need to end the pretence of a zero emission coalmine that ignores the emissions from the carbon embedded in the coal that is about to be burnt, and we need to end the hypocrisy of arguing for indigenous coal for steel coking in the UK when the coal is generally not suitable for the purpose and 84% of it will be exported to be burnt elsewhere.

As for the amendment to ensure that meeting the UK’s net zero targets becomes a specific part of Ofgem’s general responsibilities, that is just plain common sense. We have heard a number of interventions in support of it, and indeed it is one of the recommendations in the Skidmore review, as well as being called for by representatives of the wider industry including Energy UK, RenewableUK, the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Commission, and groups such as the Green Alliance. It is logical to assume that, if the Government object to Ofgem’s having a net zero mandate, they are signalling that they are not serious about doing everything possible to meet the net zero target—and when are they ever going to publish the long-delayed strategy and policy statement for Ofgem? For too long they have seemed to suggest that Ofgem should have responsibility for policy considerations when awkward questions arise, when it is clearly their responsibility to set policy decisions for Ofgem in that strategy and policy statement.

For years I have been going on about the unfair transmission grid charging system which penalises Scottish sites where the best load factor and wind resource can be found. As has been re-confirmed by the Green Alliance, the current system, overseen by Ofgem, favours electricity coming from Europe rather than wind farms built in the UK’s windiest areas. On average, according to the alliance, EU electricity generators paid 16 times less in transmission charges to send their energy to England last year than the cost of bringing energy down from Scotland, and Scottish generators are now at a significant disadvantage in comparison with sites in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Norway. What kind of perverse logic is that?

Worse still, National Grid ESO has confirmed that £4.6 billion was paid in constraint payments last year, mainly owing to the lack of grid capacity between Scotland and England. If ever there was an example of lack of strategy and forward thinking between the Government and the regulator, this is it. Paying wind farm developers to stop generating because of a lack of grid capacity, while either paying fossil fuel generators to ramp up gas generation to meet the demand or importing from the continent at the same time, is madness. Those constraint payments could easily have covered the cost of grid upgrades.

As well as the need for grid build-out to facilitate the renewable energy targets, there is a need for the Government—if they want to deploy renewable energy—to listen to what the industry is saying about the pressures of inflation and how it will struggle to meet the strike rates that have been suggested for allocation round 5. Indeed, some of the biggest developers mentioned by the Secretary of State are struggling to deliver on their AR4 commitments. We need to learn from the Spanish auction, which was a complete failure, to listen to industry and to ensure that that failure is not repeated as we try to deploy renewable energy as quickly as possible.

The Government’s own offshore wind champion has pointed out that they will be well short of the 2030 target of 50 GW of offshore wind. The Government should consider revising the “first come, first served” approach and the ability to hold on to grid consents, which is a prize that companies seek to retain. We need to move away from that system and allow access to the grid for companies that can deploy quickly. The Government rightly talk of speeding up consent processes in England and Wales through the planning system, but we must ensure that Scotland is not left behind. The Scottish Government have made contact with his Department. I am sure he understands that, while Scottish Ministers have responsibility for signing off planning consent for major infrastructure projects, the regulations themselves are reserved to Westminster under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. The two Governments need to work together to revise those regulations so that Scotland is not left behind.

Several bodies, including Energy UK and the Climate Change Committee, have called on the Government to apply a net zero test to all policy, regulatory, spending and taxation decisions. I support that, because I know that we need to move away from silo working and ensure that there is a joined-up net zero policy across all Government Departments. I also think that the UK Government should learn from the Scottish Government’s establishment of a Just Transition Commission to place fairness and long-term job creation and transfer at the forefront of net zero, and I call on them once more to match the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition funding.

I also support the amendment on community energy. As a co-sponsor of the Local Electricity Bill, I support the suggested change to provide a framework to support the growth of a community and smaller-scale electricity export guarantee scheme. It has already been supported by Community Energy Scotland, and 318 MPs now support the Bill, including 125 Back-Bench Conservatives —more than enough to win a vote in the House. The concept is also backed by more than 110 local authorities—including my own, East Ayrshire Council—and more than 80 national organisations.

The organisation Power for People deserves the most credit for getting the campaign to this stage. It is estimated that community energy generation could grow between 12 and 20-fold in size over a decade, which could mean up to 10% of electricity being generated by community-owned projects. That would facilitate additional investment providing returns for communities, building better network resilience with small schemes scattered across the grid—and, of course, that is far better value for money than the £70 billion or so for two large-scale nuclear power stations. In 2021, according to Power for People, community energy groups spent more than half a million pounds on energy efficiency upgrades, helping 21,000 people to reduce their energy bills, while nearly 60,000 individuals were engaged in energy efficiency initiatives. This means reducing energy demand in the entire system. It is clear that the reinvestment of returns by community schemes is a virtuous circle.

A policy that was successful in the past was the feed-in tariff, which secured the deployment of small-scale generation projects, particularly small-scale hydro projects in Scotland. Those projects work: they are proven technology, and last for decades. That is why we need pricing certainty for such generation. Some form of export price guarantee could reinvigorate hydro schemes around the 5 MW capacity, as delivered by companies across the Scottish highlands, such as Green Highland Renewables. It makes no sense for them to have reached maximum efficiency and expertise in terms of designers and contracts, but then to have the rug pulled from under their feet and that expertise lost.

On that subject, I want to put on record again the plea to find a way forward for pumped storage hydropower. I was disappointed that the Minister for Nuclear and Networks, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), said at the Scottish Affairs Committee that that would not happen any time soon. That technology can be deployed right now. It is proven technology that can be deployed fast, and we should be moving forward on it.

On energy efficiency, the Secretary of State was again boasting that the stock of properties rated EPC or above has increased from 14% to 47% since 2010. Yes, that is progress, but it is progress based on addressing the easiest homes first. Clearly, if only 33% of stock has been addressed in 13 years, the target for completing the rest by the target date of 2035 will not be met.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend mentioned energy efficiency. Is he as concerned as I am that there was no mention of strengthening minimum energy efficiency standards in the Bill, but measures to create powers for the Secretary of State to remove European performance of buildings regulations in the UK are included?

[Alan Brown]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concerns. It looks as if that is another Brexit dividend in reverse, where we could end up falling behind our European counterparts as those regulations have helped to drive forward standards in the UK.

To return to the Government’s efforts to upgrade stock and meet the 2035 target, we have to bear in mind that, even as house building continues, new housing is not being built to the correct energy efficiency standards, meaning that as time goes on the number of retrofits that will be required will increase. That is completely illogical and needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

On the slippage on targets, simultaneously, energy companies are finding it difficult to find homes that meet the criteria required for ECO4 upgrades. They are struggling to hit targets. It is clear that the Government will have to revise costing proposals for the scheme, or ECO4 will collapse completely. Of course that will mean the supply chain will move elsewhere and it will be hard to recover the situation. I ask the Secretary of the State to have a wee think on that.

Without action on housing and buildings, there is no plausible path to achieving the fifth carbon budget or meeting the 2030 statutory fuel poverty target. The reality is that about 7 million homes are now classed as being in fuel poverty. Energy efficiency requires much greater urgency, especially in the private rented sector. Now is the time for a proper fair social tariff; I would be happy to support amendments in that area in Committee.

There is no doubt that hydrogen production is needed as part of the net zero pathway. It can provide fuel for shipping, aviation and HGVs, for example. It will be vital for decarbonising some energy-intensive industries. However, there is a growing understanding of the reality of the cost of hydrogen production, which means it is extremely unlikely to be part of a large-scale domestic heating switch-over.

I have previously supported the H100 Fife project, which I want to see come to a conclusion as we need to have an evidence base. However, in reality, hydrogen looks to be too costly and is unlikely to be a solution. Low-carbon expert Jan Rosenow, who was a special adviser to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee when we looked at heat decarbonisation, has identified and looked at 36 independent studies that do not predict any large-scale use of hydrogen for heating.

I can see the arguments in favour of hydrogen blending and its benefits as an interim measure to reduce the use of methane gas in heating systems, but more than 20 organisations have written to the Secretary of State outlining their belief that it will be too expensive and just another burden on bill payers. We need clarity on what the hydrogen levy will look like. We know the Government want to pass it on to bill payers, but what is the anticipated cost to consumers? How can an additional levy on bills be justified at this juncture? When France and Germany are investing heavily directly in hydrogen development and with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, the Government’s levy proposal means the UK will just fall further behind.

Another concern that I have raised with the Secretary of State is about a clause in the Bill that could allow forcible disconnection from the gas network to facilitate hydrogen trials. It is really important that we do not go down the route of forcing people to disconnect, because that is no way to get the public on side.

There is a lack of joined-up thinking. The Government have said they have aspirations for hydrogen blending, but the current health and safety regulations allow a maximum limit of 2% of hydrogen to be blended into the system. At the moment, there are no proposals to change that legislation, so again the Government’s own targets cannot be met because they have other legislation that needs to be changed to make that happen.

Turning to carbon capture and storage, I welcome the legislation for the licensing and funding models, which is long overdue. This is enabling legislation, and it is clear that there are no definitive models proposed yet. There are also no clear funding pathways. We have the £20 billion a year pledge from 2028, but that has no corresponding budget line and it is at the behest of a future Government. This Government always say that they cannot bind the hands of a successor Government, so saying they can guarantee the £20 billion a year pledge is clearly at odds with that.

In the here and now, we still do not have certainty over the track 2 timeline. I ask the Secretary of State once again, when will Acorn get the backing it deserves? The Scottish Government’s 2030 targets cannot be met without it. Without further CCS clusters, the UK will miss its own targets as well. It is no surprise that the Carbon Capture and Storage Association has written to the Secretary of State outlining its concerns.

In conclusion, I turn to devolution. The Bill is littered with comments that the Secretary of State must consult

“the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament”.

The requirement only to consult is not good enough. As an absolute minimum, the UK Government should seek to work with and obtain the permission of the Scottish Government where regulations relate to devolved competency. This is another example of a power grab, as the matter is set out in the Bill instead of there being collegiate working. I ask the Secretary of State to think again on this, because it is outrageous that 29 clauses have that wording. That relates directly to what I said earlier about the need to revise section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has full competency over planning, which should be a devolved matter.

Going forward, these matters need to be addressed, and there are many issues that need a strategic overview. I would be happy to work with the Government on that, and I will certainly bring forward amendments in Committee.

Independent Review of Net Zero

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the work he has done, and for securing the debate. I thank the hon. Members who have taken part. As always, I tend to disagree with the contribution from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I certainly agreed with most of the others.

There is certainly much to like in the report, with stuff to debate and, of course, some stuff to disagree on. Given that the review was commissioned by the previous Prime Minister, after her ill-informed leadership campaign in which she pledged to remove levies from bills and alluded to net zero as a costly commitment, I welcome the fact that the report was undertaken purely independently and did not go down that rabbit hole. The key thing now is what the Government do with the recommendations, especially in the short term, given that implementation for 25 of them is recommended before 2025. That is critical because existing carbon budgets are off track. We need re-alignment if we are to hit net zero by 2050.

I note that the term “Scottish Government” is not used once in the main body of the report. Although I accept that there is engagement, and that some good practice from Scotland is mentioned in the report, I would have expected more references to and understanding of where the Scottish Government are taking a lead, including on the roll-out for electric vehicle chargers, interest-free loans for EVs, the embracing of onshore wind, peatland restoration, woodland planting, the just transition commission, the £500 million low-carbon fund for the north-east, energy efficiency measures and the roll-out of zero-emissions buses. There is a lot of good practice in Scotland that the rest of the UK could learn from. More consideration is required of devolved Governments’ inability to deliver because of funding constraints and, in the case of the Scottish Government, strict borrowing powers. That also needs to be debated.

What is abundantly clear in the report is the need for stable and consistent long-term policy to be matched by funding. The Treasury cannot be a blocker. As the right hon. Member for Kingswood said, other countries are now taking the lead in investment. The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States is making it a more attractive place for investment in renewables.

The folly of previous chopping and changing, and the cutting of solar and onshore wind from the contracts for difference auctions as part of David Cameron’s “cutting the green crap” agenda, has meant eight years of investment lost overnight from one policy decision. That has stopped the deployment of the cheapest forms of renewable energy. At least I can say that I am glad that we in Scotland continue to embrace onshore wind. We have made it integral to the decarbonisation of the power sector. The fact is that Scotland generates the equivalent of 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables. That should be held up as a fantastic achievement and an example for the UK Government to follow south of the border.

At least the deployment rate of solar is now recovering and will soon stand at 1 GW installed per year. That means that, in a period of just three years, the solar equivalent of a Hinkley Point C will come online. Solar is quicker, cheaper and can be deployed where required, providing greater grid stability. I agree with the recommendation for a plan to get a road map for 70 GW of deployment by 2035.

I also agree with the right hon. Member for Kingswood about the need for a re-envisaged road map for carbon capture, utilisation and storage to be delivered this year. The report rightly points out that the investment landscape for CCUS and hydrogen is currently unclear, and that needs to be remedied as soon as possible.

Additionally, the track-2 clusters need to be expedited. It is outrageous that the Scottish cluster remains a reserve when it is probably the most advanced of the CCS clusters and is likely to be delivered quickest. Acorn represents the worst example of the UK Government chopping and changing policy and withdrawing funding. The reality is that the Scottish cluster needs to commence for Scotland to meet the 2030 target of a 75% reduction in emissions.

The new Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), obviously knows how important the Scottish cluster is as part of the just transition, and how important it is for jobs in the north- east of Scotland. I hope to hear a more positive response, rather than holding with the mantra of, “It is okay, Acorn is the reserve.” Being the reserve is not good enough, and it needs to commence sooner rather than later.

For the record, I agree with the detail on pages 67-68 that we will still rely on North sea oil and gas as we transition towards net zero. Where I fundamentally disagree with the report is in its continued blinkered approach about new nuclear. New nuclear does not form a great deal or a big part of the report, and there is not much evidence, yet it still comes out as a key recommendation and one of the suggested 10 missions. I disagree with applying the phrase “no-regrets option” to the concept of new nuclear.

The report rightly identifies that four of the five remaining nuclear plants will go offline in the next few years, before Hinkley Point C will come on stream. If the UK grid can cope with that scenario, fundamentally we do not need new nuclear as this mythical baseload. It proves we can cope without nuclear. Nuclear is not flexible enough and is relatively incompatible with intermittent renewables. There are still the issues and costs associated with radioactive waste. If we look at long-term performance, we see that nuclear is not necessarily there when the wind does not blow. Over a 10-year period, each nuclear reactor is shown to be offline for roughly a quarter of the year, so it cannot be depended on to be there when it is needed. The reality is that we need to invest in other technologies, particularly storage, to balance intermittent renewables.

The reality is that the nuclear market has failed, because it is too expensive and too risky. There is not a successful operational EPR plant in the world, yet despite that and the ongoing performance issues at Hinkley Point C, the Government seem hellbent on signing up for Sizewell C and using a regulated asset base model that will transfer risk to bill payers. Some £700 million of taxpayers’ money has already been thrown at the development of Sizewell C. That money could be better spent elsewhere. Capital costs for Sizewell C will be at least £30 billion. Think what that money could do if invested in other technologies and in particular in energy efficiency. I welcome the recommendations about aggressive energy efficiency targets going forward. Not only will that make bills cheaper, but it means healthier homes, healthier lifestyles and demand reduction.

Finally on nuclear, the report highlights elsewhere the issue of rising sea levels. It is madness to propose building a new nuclear power station in an area subject to coastal erosion and at risk of rising sea levels. Also, the report demonstrates that nuclear energy has never got cheaper cost-wise, whereas all other technologies, including battery storage and power-to-X fuels, are now cheaper than nuclear. Figures 1 and 2 from the report make the case that we do not need new nuclear and should be investing in other technologies.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Conservatives embrace so wholeheartedly dirty, outdated technologies, such as nuclear energy, and refuse to fully embrace tidal energy, which has so much potential for our renewables industry, certainly in Scotland, but right across the United Kingdom?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

8. What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the reduction in the Scottish block grant on devolved finances.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

9. What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the reduction in the Scottish block grant on devolved finances.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

1. What recent assessment the Committee has made of the potential effect of proposals in the Elections Bill on independence of process for oversight of electoral spending, party finance and donations.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

4. What recent assessment the Committee has made of the potential effect of proposals in the Elections Bill on independence of process for oversight of electoral spending, party finance and donations.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I was so hopeful that I was getting an answer there on the hundreds of billions of pounds that are being committed.

Returning to Hinkley Point C, we hear how advanced the project is and how well it is going, but the reality in terms of cost is that it is £4.5 billion over the initial estimates, which is 25% over budget. On progress, the commissioning date for unit one has now been put back to June 2026, instead of the anticipated 2025, but they also admit there is a programme risk of up to 15 months on top of that. That means that it could be September 2027 before unit 1 of Hinkley is operational and unit 2 will then follow a further year behind. So it is realistic to say that Hinkley Point C will not be fully operational until 2027-28, which is 10 years after we were initially told that Hinkley Point C was required to stop the lights going out. Given that the lights have not gone out, that undermines the original case for Hinkley.

We have to bear in mind that the EPR system has still not been shown to be successful. Flamanville in France is expected to start generating to the grid in 2024, 12 years late. Finland’s project has been delayed yet again, until next year, and it is 13 years late. Both have been crippled with spiralling cost increases.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Further to those costs, we know that the permanent safe disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants has not yet been achieved by any country. A 2018 study from the department of geology at the University of Kansas recently suggested that nuclear waste disposal would be two and a half to four times more expensive than has been estimated. Those costs will be passed on to those who come after us. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these possibilities have been fully taken into account in the financing model?

[Alan Brown]

It will be no surprise to hear that I have no confidence that the true costs of nuclear waste disposal are actually included. We hear that this is rolled up in the strike rate for Hinkley, but if something happens and EDF goes out of operation, who will pick up the additional costs? It will clearly be the bill payers or the taxpayer. We hear about the fact that nuclear is supposed to be clean energy, but how can it be classed as clean energy when we are burying radioactive waste and having to store it for up to 1,000 years? That, to me, does not mean clean energy.

Taishan in China was held up as an exemplar EPR project when it was commissioned, but it has been offline since June this year due to safety concerns and rod damage. It is clear that the design and construction of EPR nuclear stations has still not been bottomed out properly. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), said, a reliance on French state-owned EDF and the Chinese state company China General Nuclear kind of undermines the argument about having sovereign energy security. It makes no sense.

Despite the cost and programme issues at Hinkley, we are told that Sizewell C will somehow be different. There will be cost savings from learning on Hinkley. The design will be replicated, saving more money, but the reality is that the site at Sizewell C is bound to have different ground conditions, different environmental considerations and different logistics and site constraints, which affects methods of working, and that means that we cannot build an exact duplicate station the same way.

Even if savings are realised on Sizewell C compared with Hinkley, what does that mean cost-wise? If Sizewell C saves 25% compared with Hinkley, that is still a capital cost outlay of £18 billion. Surely there are better ways to spend £18 billion. We heard from the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) about the number of jobs being created. If I was given £18 billion to £20 billion, I am sure that I could create 30,000 jobs —by the way, that is £730,000-odd a job in capital costs alone. That is not a good return.

On costs, we are told that a new deal signed under the proposed new funding model in the Bill will cost consumers only £1 a month during construction, but if we look at a 10-year construction period for Sizewell C, we see that that means that bill payers in 28 million households will pay £3.4 billion before it is operational. That is a further £3.4 billion in expenditure when that money could be better invested elsewhere.

We still do not know with this Bill what the long-term pay-back options will be. Will there be a further agreement on the strike rate or a minimum floor price on the sale of energy? What length of contract will bill payers be tied into once a RAB model for an agreement is signed off?

What else could we do with that amount of money? We could upgrade all homes to energy performance certificate band C. We could have wave and tidal generation. The UK Government are willing to introduce the Bill and commit hundreds of millions of pounds to nuclear—the Budget has £1.7 billion just for developing nuclear to a negotiation stage—but they will not even ringfence £24 million for wave and tidal in pot 2 of the forthcoming contracts for difference auction. The disparity is clear.

It is time the Government took their blinkers off. It will be a real disgrace if they do not provide a pathway for wave and tidal projects to scale up. Scotland is currently leading the world on the issue; the O2 tidal generator is operational and grid-connected in Orkney. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the request to ringfence a small amount of money in pot 2 of the forthcoming contracts for difference auction.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

I do not want to be rude to the hon. Gentleman, but he presents us with a glorious example of exactly why many on the SNP Benches want to get away from this House of Commons.

Scotland faces the same situation as we did in the last quarter of the last century: a UK Government of a hue that we did not vote for and would not support are riding roughshod over the interests of the Scottish people and will ignore them if they can. This Bill will pass today, but the debate will continue, and we have not yet begun to fight.

[Alan Brown]

I would like to briefly add to what my colleagues have said. We welcome some sort of recognition of the common frameworks. There is a lot still to be teased out in terms of how that will work. We know that Westminster’s sovereignty will overrule things, and that is still a big concern, but we welcome that measure. I still do not understand how the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and said that common frameworks could not be enshrined in the Bill, because it would be so bad and would cause businesses uncertainty, and now he says, “We’ve listened to the Lords, and everything’s okay.” It would be good if he could clarify that when he sums up.

Despite what the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said, Labour did not lead the way on this. Labour gave up on devolution, and it gave up in the other place. Labour did not even back my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) in the Reasons Committee. Labour sat on its hands in the vote in that Committee. Lord Stevenson said, “We will not divide the House.” That is giving up. Labour gave up in the Lords.

Let us look at clause 48 and what Labour gave up on. Westminster is now allowed to provide infrastructure at places in the United Kingdom, including infrastructure connected with any of the other purposes mentioned. That infrastructure includes water, which is still publicly owned in Scotland, electricity, gas, telecoms, sewerage—also publicly owned in Scotland—railway facilities and roads or other transport facilities. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, that paves the way for the glorious Union bridge or Union tunnel that we do not want and do not need, because we can invest better in transport infrastructure ourselves.

There is no doubt that the greatest improvements in Scotland’s infrastructure have come since the introduction of the Scottish Parliament, making decisions for the people of Scotland on behalf of the people of Scotland and representing the people who elected them. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Manchester Central want to intervene? No. As I was saying, the greatest improvements in Scotland’s infrastructure have come since the introduction of the Scottish Parliament. MSPs are answerable to the people who elected them. Unfortunately, we have a right- wing Tory Government who Scotland did not elect, and now they are free to overrule us. Labour backed down. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Manchester Central said; Labour backed down and gave up.

The Bill allows Westminster to spend not only in Scotland but in Wales, overruling the Welsh Labour Government on health, education, culture, sports facilities, court or prison facilities and housing. We are leading the way in building social housing in Scotland. We ended the right to buy. The Tories obviously still think that the right to buy is a good thing, forcing councils to get rid of their housing stock. How dare Westminster legislate to provide housing in Scotland—we have done very well without your help, thank you very much.

State aid is something else that Labour gave up on. It has been stated clearly that state aid was never a reserved function, and therefore it was devolved to the four nations, so why is Westminster taking it back? Does it think that that sends out a good message?

People are watching. Studies in Scotland have shown time and again that people in Scotland trust the Scottish Parliament to legislate and invest in these matters over Westminster, so why Westminster thinks it can do a better job is beyond me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, it looks like independence is the only way that we can protect the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Bring it on.

A Green Industrial Revolution

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to all hon. Members who made impressive maiden speeches today. I wish them all well in their futures as representatives of their constituencies, and I hope that they all do well by their communities.

I suppose that particular mention must be made of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), whose reminders of Scotland’s past certainly stirred passion in the hearts of those on the SNP Benches and, had you been in the Chamber, it would certainly have stirred passion in your heart as a fellow Scot, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Turning to the subject of this debate, I was delighted to hear that the UK Government will finally be taking steps to address greenhouse gas emissions. Equally, I was disappointed, but not even slightly surprised, to find that the target date for doing so is sadly 30 years in the future. It is not so much too little too late as turning up with the fire safety manual long after the building has burned to the ground. We had a statement just last week about the devastation caused by the worst Australian bushfire season ever, and I pointed out then, as I will point out again now, that Australia is not the only place on fire. We have seen the Arctic burning, too, with huge swathes of Siberian forest on fire in Greenland, Alaska and Canada. Fires in the Amazon are also beginning to threaten the ecosystems of the rainforests.

We know that this is an emergency. We know that the planet will change as a result of human activity, and the only question is, “By how much?” We know that biodiversity is being threatened and that the crops we rely on are under threat. We know all that, but the UK Government think that deferral and procrastination are okay and that nothing much will change between now and three decades hence, so let us have some sense and perspective of what 30 years means.

The first report of the IPCC calling for urgent action and strong measures to prevent serious global warming was published 30 years ago. Some Members of this Parliament had not even been born then, and we have wasted their lifetimes so far without real action. Something else that is interesting about the House of Commons of 30 years ago is that the then Prime Minister was calling for fast action to get emissions under control. Margaret Thatcher might have been horrified were she to realise that her party would still be footering aboot on the edges of the issue three decades later.

This is not just some sort of policy issue that can be revised at some future point. It is not just a passing fad that can safely be ignored. This is disaster politics coming at us with a vengeance that we cannot easily comprehend. Failing to act now does not leave options open to act later; it closes them down. A failure to act a heck of a lot more speedily three decades on will simply condemn future generations to ongoing and escalating effects that they will have to spend more and more time contending with. It will also condemn us—the generation that has had it so easy by comparison—to living a far less comfortable retirement, because much of our time and much of the effort of future Governments will be devoted to addressing the ill effects of Government failure now.

The UK Government claim to want to lead the way in addressing climate change, but they do not seem to be doing much to address climate change, so let us take a donder with the IPCC. The latest report tells us that three quarters of transport emissions are from road transport, so if the Government were serious about addressing climate change there would be massive investment in electric vehicle technology—charging points and other infrastructure, to be sure, but also research into better, less expensive technologies. Where is the commitment to do that? Where is the commitment to build more capacity for rail freight and take some of the wagons off the road?

The biggest emissions culprit is heating and power. Will there be a zero rating of VAT on renewable energy from construction to use? The Government will say they have no power to do that until they are free of the EU, so when can we expect to see that Brexit benefit?

While we are it, what about exempting building works and refurbishments that improve insulation? What about investing in better houses to begin with? What about offering incentives for insulation solutions like aerogel for passive houses and for district heating schemes?

There is no evidence that this Government intend to do anything actually to lead on climate change, and there is a similar lack of evidence that they have any idea of what to do about air quality. The 25-year plan has an ambition, if that is the right word, to reduce five air pollutants by half in 11 years—that is only five of the pollutants being pumped into children’s lungs, and maybe only reducing them by half, eventually. It is like having an ambition to paint every third plank of the garden shed, but only halfway up and only at some point in the future. In the meantime, the garden shed is rotting away and will collapse long before the painting is finished.

Way back in September 2016, I asked the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she planned to maintain the air pollution targets set out in the ambient air quality directive following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. In response, as often happens, I got a lot of words and no real answer.

The response claimed that the Clean Air Act 1956 is an example of the UK acting to improve the environment, rather than responding to thousands of Londoners being killed by smog in 1952. It touted the Act as evidence of a long-standing UK commitment to environmental action. It also said:

“Air quality has improved significantly in recent decades; we are working at local, national and international levels and will continue to do more.”

The response never answered the question about a commitment to match the EU’s air pollution targets.

This Government, in my view and in the view of many others, waffle a lot and deliver little, if anything. The time for action was quite some time ago, and the response was and still is lacking. We have gone from a need to take action 30 years ago to a promise that action will be taken 30 years hence. There are no answers to the questions being asked, and no idea of what they mean.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about air pollution, and she is highlighting the real concerns. Does she agree that those concerns are backed up by the Government’s action? They have lost to ClientEarth in the High Court at least twice because they are not taking proper action on air pollution. There are 40,000 premature deaths a year due to air pollution, and that the Government will not even commit to matching the EU’s standards is a real concern.

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and I can only agree with him. It is clear evidence of this Government’s continued failure to act, and I appreciate his contribution.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Deidre Brock and Alan Brown

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

rose—