Draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.

The draft instrument, which was laid before the House on 9 September 2019, amends the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment & Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015. The existing legislation supports the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries by providing for a scheme exempting eligible businesses from a proportion of the cost of funding renewable electricity. The draft instrument will amend the existing legislation to include the manufacture of grain mill products; clarify the application of state aid requirements, which exclude undertakings in difficulty from the scheme; and improve the scheme’s overall operation.

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

The Minister says that the exclusion relates to renewable energy. Will he confirm that it does not relate to the cost of nuclear energy, including the strike rate mechanism for Hinkley Point C?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I was coming to the importance of the energy-intensive industries that are excluded. We exclude sectors that apply for that exclusion from any renewable obligations by up to 85%. I will address that further later on.

[Alan Brown]

The draft impact assessment says that this exclusion will be worth around £2.8 million per business in terms of the contract for difference mechanism for energy-intensive industries. I am just trying to get a handle on the total cost. Does that include the strike rate mechanism for Hinkley Point C? While the Minister is at it, will he explain whether this includes future capacity market auctions? There will obviously be a further round of CfD bids in the future. Will these industries be automatically exempt from them as well?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The regulations deal with the cost of current renewables. Obviously, in the future, other mechanisms will be in place.

The sectors eligible for the existing exemption scheme employ around 350,000 workers and account for more than a quarter of total UK exports. Many are located in areas of economic disadvantage and provide good, well-paid jobs in those areas. While our industrial gas price is internationally competitive, our electricity prices for medium and large industrial users were the highest in western Europe in 2018. Clearly, electricity costs have a significant impact on the competitiveness of such enterprises. The industries affected operate in international markets, so higher electricity costs place them at a competitive disadvantage, resulting in the risk of carbon leakage, as it is referred to, where companies move production to countries with a less ambitious climate policy.

The existing legislation covering energy-intensive industries allows eligible businesses to receive an indirect exemption of up to 85% of the cost of funding renewable electricity schemes. Where an eligible business applies successfully for the exemption, its electricity supplier receives a reduction in its costs, which it passes on to the eligible business. This approach mitigates the cost of renewable electricity schemes, supports industrial competitiveness and provides certainty for business. The costs of the exemptions are distributed to all other electricity users.

“What does this SI do?”, I hear you ask, Mr Paisley. The regulations add the grain mill products sector to the list of eligible sectors and clarify the application of state aid requirements, which exclude undertakings in difficulty from the scheme. The regulations will also improve the scheme by ensuring that a business that uses a new meter will have to accrue only three months of data before applying, instead of having to wait until they have data from the previous year, as they have to now.

Where electricity meters are shared by more than one business, the proportion of electricity exempted will be updated more rapidly—it is currently done on an annual basis—making the system much more agile and responsive. Certificates will expire at the end of June, rather than March, reducing the risk of business facing a gap in the exemption. Businesses will also be able to submit quarterly reports on any day in that quarter, resulting in increased flexibility for them.

[Alan Brown]

When the Minister was clarifying what the regulations do, he mentioned that the scheme now includes grain mills and flour businesses. How many additional businesses will apply for an exemption? Will he estimate how many jobs that will protect?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. For clarification, I want to return to his earlier point on the nuclear CfD. The EII applies to renewables costs only and not to the indirect cost of the nuclear CfD. Of course, it does apply to future renewable CfD auctions.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question, it will depend on the sector and the companies that apply from that sector. We are adding grain mills and, if they apply, they will be eligible. More than 200 UK businesses already benefit from energy-intensive industry exemptions, and we estimate they save about £300 million in electricity costs. We anticipate that about 15 businesses will be eligible through this further extension of the scheme.

The regulations will extend and improve the existing legislation supporting the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing industries in the UK. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I pay tribute to the officials sat in the Box beside you. It always amazes me how they manage to get answers to bail out the Minister before he finishes his opening remarks.

This SI is an ad-hoc arrangement indicative of a reactive Government and the fact that, over the years, energy policy has kept chopping and changing. We need a strong focus and a coherent policy that will deliver the lowest-cost renewable energy to bring down the overall energy cost for households and businesses. That means scrapping the nuclear white elephants and forgetting the mad plan for small modular reactors. It is one for the future—it is fantasy—and we should focus here and now on renewables.

The Minister explained that the costs for Hinkley Point C nuclear are not exempted for energy-intensive industry, so it makes no sense that there is an exemption from offshore wind costs. Offshore wind now has a £40 strike price per megawatt hour, whereas Hinkley Point C has a £92.50 strike price for a 35-year concession, compared with a 15-year concession for offshore wind. Industries are exempted from offshore wind costs, but not nuclear. That sends out the wrong message about the value of renewable energy.

The Minister said that 200 businesses currently have exemptions. Where are those 200 businesses located and how many jobs does that support? Perhaps the Minister can write to me; I do not expect a response right away. How many energy-intensive businesses have been assessed as ineligible to date? As the explanatory memorandum points out, those that are deemed ineligible will have to pay more costs for their energy, to carry the exemptions of new businesses that come on stream. How many have been classed as ineligible, and will that be reviewed?

How do the Government assess the business impact element that deems energy-intensive industries less competitive compared with rivals and therefore eligible for this exemption? Do they take any other factors into account? The Minister mentioned the fact that gas energy is very competitive in the UK compared with international rivals, but electricity is not. Are they looking at any other comparators? For example, the value of the pound has plunged, which is supposed to be good for manufacturing and exports. Where do all those things fit in the bigger picture?

Paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum suggests the cost per household is just £4 per annum, which, I accept, on balance should not be too big a burden, although we have to recognise that we have fuel-poor households. However, paragraph 10.4 suggests that if the Government look to change the exemption threshold, it would have a big effect on householders, including the fuel-poor. What is the scale of the impact assessments the Government make and how often do they look at this? Do they recognise that a tipping point could be reached?

Paragraph 14.1 of the explanatory memorandum suggests that the Government will conduct a review in 2023. What will be the terms of reference for that review? Will it report in 2023 and start beforehand? How will it be reported back to Parliament? Why 2023? That seems quite arbitrary.

How sustainable is it to continue to have householders carry the cost of energy for energy-intensive industries? Will the long-awaited energy White Paper address this looking ahead? How does this policy fit in with the net-zero targets and how does it incentivise switches to cleaner or local renewable energy for energy-intensive industries?

What assessment have the Government made of the energy demands of those companies, their carbon footprint, and how proposals such as carbon capture and underground storage can be used to bring down their carbon footprints, as well as other ways to reduce their energy costs?

Going forward, we need onshore wind: it is the cheapest form of electricity generation, which should help both energy-intensive companies and householders. According to the Committee on Climate Change, we need to almost triple our onshore wind capacity by 2035, so what plans do the Government have to do that, and how do they fit in with these measures?

I am not minded to vote against the regulations, as we have accepted similar measures for other energy-intensive industries in the past, and this is just an add-on to those. However, it would be good to hear some further clarifications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

On the topic of not offshoring manufacturing, does the hon. Gentleman agree with Matt Cole that the UK Government should include in future CfD auctions an incentive for bidders to use UK-based supply chains? At the moment, there is no quality assessment, so it is “lowest price wins”, but that could be changed with the correct tender assessment process.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about domestic supply chains. I am not an interventionist in supply chains and the UK economy in the same way that his party is, so I probably would not agree with him about that.

To develop my point to a conclusion, if—for example—steel is being produced in a foreign jurisdiction in a way that is not so efficient per tonne and number of kilowatt hours, and we then use fossil fuels to import that steel on a ship, we do nothing for the planet in terms of overall CO₂ reductions.

I welcome the proposals, but I envisage various industries arguing for this policy to be extended over time, which will cost domestic consumers more and more, so some care is required. Much as I support what is being done today, there is a greater discussion to be had about the whole renewables industry and how it is financed, because at the end of the day, those who are suffering fuel poverty will only have their poverty exacerbated by such moves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Obviously there has always been an argument that Hinkley Point C is required to provide the baseload, but when the original case was made for it we were told that if it was not commissioned by December 2017 the lights would go out, because there would not be sufficient baseload in the UK to keep the lights on. We are clearly way past December 2017. I think that the very earliest it will be commissioned, with a good tailwind, is 2025. It could be beyond that, so it kind of negates that argument for baseload, does it not?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Not quite, because obviously the baseload is still needed. We have been able through efficient and safe operation to mitigate the delay, but obviously we do not want further delay.

A Green Industrial Revolution

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

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

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

In 2017, low-carbon fuels produced more electricity than fossil fuels for the first time, and in that year we also saw the first coal-free day for a century, followed in 2019 by the first coal-free week and coal-free fortnight. Building on the world’s first climate change Act, last year we became the world’s first major economy to legislate to end our contribution to climate change altogether by 2050.

[Alan Brown]

We obviously welcome some of the things that the Secretary of State has outlined, but on the net zero target that she just outlined, Lord Deben, the chair of the Committee on Climate Change, said in his covering letter to an update report that

“policy ambition and implementation now fall well short of what is required”

to achieve the target of net zero by 2050. Is the Secretary of State going to address that in her speech?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will indeed address it, and I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken the advice of the Committee on Climate Change in setting our legally binding commitments to net zero by 2050. Throughout the year, we will set out precisely how we think we can achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend is quite right. It is devastating to see the impact of what has happened in her constituency. We need to tackle the climate emergency, and we need a robust industrial strategy to sit alongside it. This is the biggest economic opportunity that the country has had in a generation. By tackling a huge societal and environmental need, we can support our industries and create the new green jobs of the future. Unfortunately, although we talk about targets, and about providing help here and there, we are not backing it up with a comprehensive industrial strategy that supports our industries. What was lacking in the general election campaign—although certainly not from the Labour party—was support for the steel sector, with a robust strategy ensuring that the steel industry plays a key role in our infrastructure projects and the technologies of the future. That is what I would like to see from this Government.

[Alan Brown]

On honesty and ambition, the hon. Lady said that net zero by 2050 is not good enough, so I am sure she will welcome the fact that the Scottish Government have legislated for net zero by 2045. During the general election campaign, Labour started talking about net zero by 2030. Currently, 27 million homes rely on fossil fuels, so getting to net zero by then would mean changing over 52,000 homes a week every week from 1 January 2020 until the end of the decade. What are Labour’s plans for doing that?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. Certainly, there is no point in having a target without having an ambitious plan to deliver it. We know from the work of leading scientists across the world that the majority of the work that needs to be done even to reach net zero by 2050 must be done by 2030. That is an inescapable fact and that is why we have to move so quickly.

The Government have started to work towards insulating social homes. That is welcome, but it is not enough. We need to look at how we can support the UK’s 27 million homes to take part in a home insulation programme that will not only tackle climate change but help to bring down bills. We had an ambitious package for that but unfortunately we did not deliver that message strongly enough in our election campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The word “revolution” means either an overthrow or a radical and pervasive change in society, especially one made suddenly. Have we really had a green industrial revolution? Have we had a revolution in Government? I would suggest that, if anything, there has been a counter green revolution, given that the Tory Government scrapped the Department for Energy and Climate Change, thus highlighting their priorities in recent years.

I have to acknowledge that we have made fantastic strides forward with renewable energy, but has it been a revolution? I would argue that, owing to the UK Government chopping and changing strategy, the process has been too stop-start to be classed as revolutionary. We have seen a welcome increase in the deployment of renewable energy, and UK Government support has facilitated that, but owing to policy changes, there have been too many peaks, troughs and, in some cases, catastrophic failures because of the actions of the UK Government.

The first example of that is onshore wind, which was deployed to great effect in Scotland, with prices falling rapidly due to the initial Government policies. It was a renewable energy revolution that Scotland embraced—one that saw 75% of gross electricity demand met by renewable generation in Scotland in 2018. However, the Tory shire prejudice against onshore wind means that the Tory Government are now blocking onshore wind across the UK, against Scotland’s wishes.

The Committee on Climate Change states that onshore wind capacity in the UK needs to increase from 13 GW to 35 GW by 2035 as part of the net zero transition, yet there is no route to market at present for onshore wind, despite it being the cheapest form of electricity generation. The former Secretary of State for Scotland should hang his head in shame for blocking the redeployment of onshore wind in Scotland. A report by Vivid Economics estimates that this could cost 2,300 jobs in Scotland and add £50 a year to everybody’s energy bills.

As the debate on Scottish independence re-intensifies, we need to remember the broken pledge and propaganda on onshore wind in 2014. We were told how well Scotland does out of onshore wind subsidies, how that would continue and how the UK as a whole would support onshore wind in Scotland, but instead the subsidies were removed a year or so after. That is another broken promise in 2014 that the public need to be reminded of.

When we consider renewables and wind in particular, it is a reminder that the transmission charging regime is a straitjacket around Scotland. The punitive charges, especially in the north of Scotland, can be a deal breaker for some developments. The charging system needs a complete overhaul to allow deployment of renewable energy for maximum benefit.

Similarly, we need a timescale for the delivery of interconnectors to Scotland’s islands. The change in classification for island onshore wind so that it can bid in pot 2 contract for difference auctions is welcome, but without the interconnectors these opportunities cannot be maximised. Ofgem needs to reconsider its rejection of a 600 MW interconnector to the Western Isles. Why is it holding out for a less ambitious 450 MW interconnector?

We need greater strategic vision from the UK Government on interconnectors. We need interconnectors to the continent and Norway, because of the abundance of hydroelectric energy. Is it not telling that Ireland is getting an interconnector to France, paid for by the EU at a cost of half a billion pounds? What does that signal for the future direction of the single energy market, and where does Brexit and a possible no-deal crash-out leave the UK without those vital interconnectors?

In the past—in another policy change—we had the carbon capture fiasco, when the Treasury pulled £1 billion that was on offer, and which looked set to deliver carbon capture and storage in Peterhead. That was a wasted opportunity—money down the drain with nothing to show for it—and it cost 600 jobs in Peterhead and ruined the chance for the UK and Scotland to be a world leader in that technology. I am asking Westminster to please back Scotland’s CCS potential. With 35% of the available capacity in the whole of Europe, we could still be a world leader. However, it needs a fast start, and better investment in Scotland. The Committee on Climate Change has made it clear that carbon capture is not a wish; it is a necessity in order to hit net zero by 2050.

Solar energy was another possible success story, yet, when it was looking good, the Tory Government pulled the feed-in tariffs and now they have quadrupled the VAT on solar installations, so they have destroyed the industry just as it was heading towards subsidy-free installations. That is another example of a UK Government policy revolution wreaking havoc on an industry. The VAT decision must be reversed as soon as possible.

And yet, when it comes to nuclear and the Government’s nuclear obsession, money is no object. We signed up to Hinkley Point C, which has a 35-year concession at a strike rate of £92.50 per MWh, and yet, as the Secretary of State is aware—she spoke about the benefits of offshore wind—offshore wind now has a strike rate of £40 per MWh for just 15 years, so it is about three to four times cheaper than nuclear energy. Why are the Tory Government continuing to pursue new nuclear projects? It makes no sense. [Interruption.] Can the Secretary of State explain why?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be very aware that there is a difference between the baseload and the variability of renewables.

[Alan Brown]

And the Secretary of State will know very well that that baseload is becoming a moot argument. It was argued that Hinkley Point C was required by December 2017 for the baseload to stop the lights going out. Now Hinkley will not be delivered till 2025 by the earliest, and the lights have not gone out. That shows how much the market has changed. Half the existing nuclear power stations will be decommissioned by 2024, and they cannot be replaced by new nuclear stations in that time, so the Government really do need to look again at their strategy, and new nuclear power stations is not that.

The Government say that the National Infrastructure Commission have said that there should be only one new nuclear power station, because of the change in renewables technology. Again, it seems that the Government are not actually listening to the body they say they are listening to.

As an alternative to nuclear, we also need to look at sector deals for investments such as marine and tidal energy, and also floating offshore wind. Where are their sector deals and what is happening with those?

Has there even been an industrial revolution? Again, I would suggest not. The UK Government failed to back the technological development of onshore wind and the fantastic opportunities there. That led to the manufacturing sector of that industry being developed elsewhere, particularly Denmark. That was a massive lost opportunity, and it cannot be replicated by other emerging technologies.

Even now, when it comes to offshore wind, the CfD auctions do not include a quality mechanism that would allow bidders to be rewarded for using local supply chains. That would be an ideal way to generate industrial jobs around the coastal communities, and it would provide greater opportunities for companies in Scotland, such as BiFab and CS Wind. Why are the UK Government not willing to incorporate such a procurement quality assessment mechanism in the auction process? It makes sense, and it would also reduce the construction carbon footprint for the delivery of such projects.

If we are to hit net zero in the UK by 2050, we need a proper green industrial revolution. We need the large-scale development of CCS, which, as well as creating jobs, will allow a long-term just transition for the oil and gas sector. We need radical measures to decarbonise our heat. Our domestic heating systems are the elephant in the room when it comes to the net zero target. I said earlier that 27 million houses relied on fossil fuels for heating, so a change in that mechanism for 27 million homes needs to be a proper revolution. It is likely that we shall see gas central heating boilers change to hydrogen boilers, and we know that hydrogen blending is a short-term transitional measure in decarbonising the gas network, but we need the strategies and policies in place, and the necessary changes in regulation to allow that to happen. There, too, we need concrete plans from the UK Government.

If I may switch back to Scotland, Scotland has been attempting to undergo a real green industrial revolution, but again we have been hampered by UK Government policies, the U-turns and the lack of strategic vision. Where is the energy White Paper that we were promised last year? It is ridiculous to have a clean growth strategy, an industrial strategy, but not an overarching or a linking energy policy that brings those together. We need to see that sooner or later.

Where is the Government response to the National Infrastructure Commission? We are still waiting on that. That is another organisation that states that energy efficiency should be treated as a national infrastructure programme. It would create jobs and it reduces carbon emissions, energy demand and fuel poverty. And yet, again, the Tory Government have not addressed that. They previously chose to go down the route of the green deal, which actually forced people to take out loans. Then the green deal led to scandal, with the mis-selling of solar panels by the company HELMS, leaving thousands of people with 25-year loans and faulty installations. The UK Government have still not rectified that. Will the Secretary of State consider that as well?

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government spend four times as much per capita on energy efficiency measures as the UK Government. For that, they have been praised by industry, third sector organisations and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Put simply, Scotland leads the way in energy efficiency, and by 2021 the SNP Government will have invested £1 billion in energy efficiency programmes.

The one energy efficiency measure that the UK Government brought in is the energy company obligation scheme—ECO. But the Committee on Fuel Poverty states that that is not helping the people who require it the most. In effect, that means that those who struggle to pay their bills for energy costs now pay extra on their energy bills for ECO, which is then funding energy efficiency measures for those most likely to be able to afford them. That is completely bonkers. There is also a really serious point, because every year 3,000 people in the UK die as a result of fuel poverty—the second-worst rate in Europe. Urgent, coherent action is needed to address fuel poverty and to address energy efficiency measures.

Scotland leads in energy efficiency, and we also lead in climate change registration targets: the first Government to call a climate change emergency; a net zero target for 2045; and a 75% target reduction by 2030. According to the Committee on Climate Change, Scotland has become the leading UK nation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. However, these latest targets are world-leading. Our 2030 target goes beyond what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states is required globally to limit warming to the 1.5°, as per the Paris climate agreement. We have also taken the difficult decision not to reduce air passenger duty when it is devolved. In the past couple of days the UK Government have been flip-flopping on that, and are all over the place when it comes to APD.

Going forward, the Scottish Government’s “Programme for Government” puts the green new deal at the heart of Government policy. Securing transition to net zero will be the primary mission for the Scottish National Investment Bank, supported by £130 million this year. The creation of the SNIB will provide £2 billion of long-term capital to businesses and infrastructure projects, to help transform the Scottish economy, and again reduce carbon emissions. That contrasts directly with the UK Green Investment Bank, set up by the Tory Government and then sold off without assurances of green aims or a UK focus.

We know that transport is a major carbon emitter. If we are looking at the roll-out of electric vehicles, I suggest that we need to look at Norway. It has undertaken a real revolution towards electric and low emission vehicles. In 2019, 58% of new car sales were of plug-in low-emission vehicles and 42% of overall sales were of fully electric cars. Meanwhile, here in the UK, flags are being waved and we are supposed to celebrate the fact that we have reached 3% sales of electric vehicles. According to the Committee on Climate Change, the UK deadline of 2040 for the phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles is way too far ahead, and even then the plans for its delivery are too vague. I suggest that the UK Government look to a small, independent, prosperous country such as Norway for inspiration, and to see how things can be done properly.

The UK has made strides regarding carbon emissions, but, as we have heard, there is a long way to go. While we look for solutions, nature is unfortunately undergoing its own climate change revolution. We have seen that with the bushfires in Australia, the 4 million hectares of Siberian forest that burned a few months ago, and the fires in Greenland, Alaska and Canada. The six hottest years on record have been the last six consecutive years, with warming oceans and melting ice. Things are critical, and Lord Deben, Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, said that the UK’s efforts to deal with climate change have fallen short. Indeed, in the interim progress report he states that

“policy ambition and implementation now fall well short of what is required.”

We have a Prime Minister who ducked out of TV debates on climate change, so we are looking for real leadership on this issue. I am glad that Scotland is showing such leadership, but I know it could do so much more if it were a small, independent country that was able to grasp the nettle in the way that Norway has.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

I will come on to exactly that topic a little later.

This year is a unique opportunity, with the UK hosting the world global climate change conference. I will come to the issue of transport emissions in a minute.

It is really important that we are ambitious in the targets we set, but it is also vital that we bring people with us. I look forward to being an observer at the citizens’ assembly on the climate emergency, which is happening in Birmingham over the next few weeks. There is no point in setting an ambitious target if it is not achievable, and the Opposition’s suggestion that we could achieve net zero by 2030 is disingenuous; it is neither honest nor true.

This country has already done a huge amount to decarbonise electricity. We lead the world in offshore wind and in ending the use of coal, but we can do more. It is great news that by 2025 we will be able to have completely carbon-free inputs to our electricity grid, but we know that it needs to be more resilient. It needs investment, which cannot all come from public funds; it needs private investment too, which is why we need a strong economy.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Vicky Ford]

I will keep going, because I have only a short time. I will not take any more interventions.

We need to make sure that we can use smart demand management, using AI and technology. I have seen at first hand how this works on the national grid. We also need to unlock the potential of electric vehicles, because of the benefits that they bring to battery storage. I welcome the Government’s commitment to more EV charging points, although I believe we need more urgency on this subject.

[Vicky Ford]

The Science and Technology Committee looked into electric vehicles’ batteries and resources in great detail last year, particularly the demand for lithium and cobalt—precious materials that are a globally constrained resource. The fight for global minerals will be an increasingly important part of foreign policy, and I would like to see that part of the net zero challenge addressed in the Foreign Office as well. I have driven a hydrogen-fuelled car and returned it safely, giving the keys back at the end. Using hydrogen in cars and potentially feeding hydrogen into our domestic gas network could bring huge benefits.

I am pleased that the Government are to introduce a super-bus strategy. We need better buses in my city of Chelmsford. We need to have medium and long-term strategies on that. We also need to relook at how we run our railways. The service offered to my rail commuters in Chelmsford at the moment is simply not good enough.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) asked about air transport. As a one-nation Conservative I acknowledge the need to improve connectivity between all parts of our country, and regional airlines have a role to play in that, but as an eco-Tory I recognise the urgent need to tackle air transport emissions. It is good that the UK is leading the world in developing cleaner, greener aircraft—Cranfield University is a leader in this—but we should do more about carbon offsetting. Easyjet is now carbon offsetting all its flights, but Flybe does not offer that service to anyone. Consumers have a role to play, and they should be given the ability to carbon offset.

[Alan Brown]

After my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) intervened, the hon. Lady said that net zero should be embedded in every Government decision. If the Government on a whim say, “We are going to review and reduce APD,” how is net zero embedded in that decision?

[Vicky Ford]

I am calling on the Government to look at how we can embed net zero in every single decision. I believe that getting cleaner, greener aircraft is one way to deliver connectivity, but more needs to be done on carbon offsetting. In the medium and longer term, we need to look urgently at the issue of aircraft emissions.

I turn to consumer choice. The biggest part of many consumers’ carbon footprint is how they heat their homes. More needs to be done on the decarbonisation of heat, so I warmly welcome the Government’s announcements to invest £9.2 billion in energy efficiency in our homes, schools and hospitals. However, I would also call for more green mortgages. We have one of the most innovative financial services sectors in the world, and should be able to do more in relation to how people finance their mortgages.

My final point is on plastic. As the House knows, I am allergic to the use of unnecessary single-use plastic. It is great that the Government have committed another £500 million to the Blue Planet fund, and are helping developing countries across the world to protect our oceans.

I also warmly welcome the producer tax, but we need to get a deposit return scheme going too. Actually, I believe Scotland would be better off if it worked within the whole UK to introduce a scheme that worked for the whole UK. That would be better for industry and consumers. Consumers want to see a step change in how we deal with single-use plastics, and this needs to happen across all areas, not just food. We need to work with producers and consumers, and it would be better if the people of Scotland worked with the whole UK to deliver it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

With hon. Members’ permission, I will make a little progress first. I have not even touched on anyone else’s speech yet, so let me talk about this afternoon’s debate. We know that global warming is one of the biggest threats to humanity. That is why tackling climate change is so important, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out some of the measures we are taking.

The contributions to the debate have been particularly impressive, and I pay tribute to the nine Members I noted making their maiden speech today. Each was brilliant in different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) spoke about the poor rail service in his constituency—I am sorry about that. Other Members mentioned rail services in relation to Northern. The House will be aware that I have been speaking about that recently, and will again very soon. He made a beautifully pitched and calmly delivered speech, showing how much he cares about the community he now represents. Our hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) spoke in great terms about his constituency and everything going on in the community, and did a wonderful job.

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) described her constituency with great care, leaving us in no doubt about her passion for it. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made a fantastic speech, showing great knowledge of subjects including offshore wind. She pointed out that seven of the 10 largest offshore wind farms are here in the UK —a great statistic. The hon. Members for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) also made their maiden speeches in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) proposed a statue of the “Beast of Bolsover”, although we do not know how that would be taken. His was a fine speech.

The new hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) talked about her constituency—the constituency in which I got married, it so happens—with great passion.

Finally, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) also spoke about her constituency very passionately indeed. There were fantastic speeches all around, and all concentrated on today’s subject of green growth.

Reducing carbon in the atmosphere is incredibly important. I know we have had a bit of a debate about it this afternoon because we will say, quite rightly, that our economy has expanded by over two thirds since 1990, but we have managed to cut carbon emissions by more than 40%. I want to point out—because this was questioned during the debate—that these are figures not that we have somehow come to but which have been calculated under the internationally recognised system for assessing the amount of carbon that has been cut. The figures do show a 40% cut since 1990, which is faster than any other G20 country.

We continue to lead the world in this process. We have legislated for zero carbon by 2050, becoming the first major economy to do so. Of course, what happens internationally is important, but I do not accept the argument that just because we cannot control what everybody else in the rest of the world does we should not be making the effort ourselves. It is the right thing to do, and we should be proud of our performance in this area.

We also know that measures have to be viable and practical. It is easy to say that we should just follow Norway, where a number of electric cars are sold. Does the House know why that is so? It is because it does not have a domestic car production facility to protect before the change to electric; it does not produce its own cars. So to all those Members who say, “Look, why don’t we just do it tomorrow? Why don’t we just demand that every car is electric from now on?”, the answer is: because every single factory in every single one of the constituencies affected would be closing tomorrow. We have to work with the industry and help it to make the transition, and that is what this Government are doing every single day of the week.

Let us not forget what this country has achieved so far. We ratified the Paris agreement. More than half our electricity—53%—now comes from low-carbon sources. We fostered green industry, which is now worth £45 billion; and that goes to my previous point that we need to have a period of transition for industry. The new green sector now employs 430,000 people, so it is growing all the time. We are setting a net zero target, and have committed around £2 billion to green growth initiatives. An awful lot is happening.

To manage these great efforts, we know that there has to be a framework—an industrial strategy. The clean growth strategy, which details our carbon-cutting plans through to 2032, is exactly that document. In July we published our green finance strategy to trigger investment in green infrastructure technologies and services, from offshore wind to energy-efficient housing. Of course, the Prime Minister will chair the new Cabinet Committee on Climate Change to help co-ordinate the effort of the whole country to get to zero carbon. Later this year the UK will have the honour of hosting the climate change summit in Glasgow.

[Alan Brown]

I want to go back to the argument of, “It’s great for Norway because they don’t have a domestic car production industry to protect, so they can do what they want.” What are the UK Government doing to change the domestic car production industry in the UK to allow it to capitalise on this market? The Government were very good at making behind-the-doors, closed deals when it came to advance talks about Brexit, so what are they doing to ensure that these companies can adapt to electric car manufacturing?

[Grant Shapps]

I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. There is £500 million to help a gigafactory come to this country. That was not done behind closed doors; we announced it publicly. I am sorry he had not spotted the announcement. This is a very positive way of ensuring that more car production comes here. I should also let him know that one in five electric cars sold in Europe last year were made in the United Kingdom—made right here.

Our support for the electrification of vehicles is second to none. Let me give some examples. We now have more charging locations in petrol stations, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned. We have over 200,000 plug-in chargers in home locations. We have much more to do, though, and that is why both through the money already announced—£400,000—and another £1 billion in our manifesto we are pledging to put a lot more resource into having more charging locations so that people do not have as much range anxiety when they drive one of these vehicles. The need for that was one of the key points made by Members across the House.

I know exactly why people are concerned. I drive an electric car, as I have mentioned before. I know the anxiety of wondering about whether one will get to one’s next location, but the good news is that in reality, rather than just the concern about it, I have never found it to be a problem. Every single service station on the motorway network in this country—now bar one, I think—has electric charging. However, I want that charging to be faster. I want it to be rapid rather than just a so-called fast charge. This Government absolutely share the ambition of this House to get that job done and get it done quicker.

At the UN climate action summit, as Members know, the Prime Minister announced that we would double our contribution to £11.6 billion between 2021 and 2025. That will do a huge amount to assist. I heard someone say during the debate, “That’s not right because it’s coming from international development.” If we do not think it is right to use international development money to save this planet, then I do not know what the money is there for. It is absolutely the right thing to be doing.

I am delighted that the Queen’s Speech includes significant measures to move forward our green programme even further. In particular, the environment Bill will put accountability and practical delivery at the heart of our agenda while providing much-needed certainty for business. The Bill includes measures to improve air quality, restore habitats, increase biodiversity, build a less wasteful economy—hon. Members have mentioned things such as plastic waste, which it will deal with—and better manage our water resources.

Crucially, the Bill will introduce a system for new, legally binding long-term targets in all these critical areas so that central and local government—there has been some talk about how local government fits into this picture—are clear on their legal responsibilities to protect our precious environment. I have been working very actively with local authorities—for example, in the provision of electric car charging points—to ensure that they have everything they need to be able to accelerate this programme as quickly as possible.

Those targets all have a minimum duration of 15 years, because given the scale of the challenge we face, which has been so well articulated by Members across the House, we believe that we have to be extremely ambitious. We have to consider the implications for business, for industry and for the public. We must take people with us as we adapt to this enormous change, use new technology, and make sure that we hit the necessary emission goals, as we will have to do because they will be there in law.

Although air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010 and emissions of nitrogen oxides are at their lowest level since records began, I want to acknowledge a couple of areas where I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). Since energy is no longer the most polluting part of our economy because we produced 53% through renewable sources last year, transport is now the most polluting part of our economy. I think he gave the figure: 27% of all pollution comes from transport, and 90% of that from vehicles. There is a huge prize in solving this problem, and the technology is already here. I heard Members talk about the use of alternative and different types of energy for cars—hydrogen, for example. These technologies are coming along. We have a £28 million programme to further the production of hydrogen vehicles. In transport, it is horses for courses, so heavy items such as trains will work well in future through hydrogen, and lighter items such as cars will work better through electricity. It is a question of developing in all those different ways, and that is what we are determined to do.

There was a very interesting exchange about the amount of NO₂ in our atmosphere. A huge amount of these particles come from transport, and although that discussion was about whether pollutants and CO₂ are the same thing—they are clearly not—the reality is that if we take a lot of the same steps it will solve the same problems. It is good and right that the Bill we are introducing tackles both those things: fine particulate matter and CO₂.

We know that there is a huge amount to be done, and I know that the whole House wants us to get there. One of the most controversial areas is when we end the sale of petrol and diesel cars. I heard a number of calls in the debate to do that earlier than the already pledged 2040. I want to do that. I have spoken about that and we will consult on it, but we need to do it in a way that ensures that people do not end up coming back to the House saying, “What happened to that industry and those car producers in my constituency?” We have to do it in a way that works and takes the whole of the economy with us in the best possible way.

From some of the discussion this afternoon, it may not be obvious that the number of electric cars has grown from just 1,500 a decade ago to 200,000 today. The growth in the last year alone has been enormous. Electric car sales are taking off. I think I am right in saying that we have the second largest market in the European Union for ultra low emission cars.

We are doing an awful lot of things behind the scenes to encourage take-up. For example, if someone goes to pay their road tax on the DVLA site right now, they will see a page that suggests that they might be able to pay less road tax if they transfer to an electric car. I know that there are concerns about the overall costs of buying a new electric car, but I want to make this point. When someone buys an electric car, they will find that their petrol bill disappears—it is replaced by an electric bill, but that will probably be a 10th of the cost. They will find that there is no oil for the car and no servicing for the car, and the car tax may well be much lower. Given that 85% of car buyers buy on a finance package—a personal contract purchase—the overall lifetime experience of owning the car may not be all that different. But I agree that we need to work hard to ensure that, as with solar, where we have seen a 50% cut in the cost, we see the same with electric cars.

This has been an excellent debate. The Queen’s Speech has laid out an exciting programme to prepare Britain for the future, making us a more prosperous yet greener nation. We have a unique opportunity today, after three and a half years in which Brexit has—let’s face it—dominated everything about politics and absorbed so much time and energy. We now have a strong mandate to deliver our vision for a modern, green, growing economy, and that is why I commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is right: this is one of the top issues that come across my desk. I feel the local concern about it, and we will take that into consideration when we reach a final decision.

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

The National Audit Office report confirms that the UK Government have not analysed the costs and benefits of fracking and do not know how much money they have actually spent supporting fracking. Governance and regulation risks remain, as well as decommissioning liabilities that need to be resolved. Is it not time that the UK Government followed the lead of the Scottish Government and decided not to support the development of unconventional oil and gas?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), we will consider the Oil and Gas Authority’s report and we will look at the evidence before we reach a final decision on the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on support for onshore wind.

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

11. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on support for onshore wind.

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Chris Skidmore)]

BEIS Ministers regularly discuss a range of issues with their counterparts in the Scotland Office, and just last week I met with the Scottish Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands at the British-Irish Council in Manchester to discuss energy and the environment. It was an incredibly productive meeting, in contrast to what I often find with Opposition Members in this place. The Government will continue to work with Scotland on a range of issues, including strengthening the city region deals in six areas, including Glasgow, Stirling and Aberdeen.

[Chris Skidmore]

It is a little known fact that we have 13.8 GW of onshore wind capacity installed in the UK already—enough to power over 7.6 million UK homes—which includes 8.1 GW in Scotland. I understand that there are new projects close to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in north Lanarkshire, with 46 MW of onshore wind projects planned. I am not necessarily interested in what the Secretary of State for Scotland has to say on this issue; I am interested in what the Scottish people have to say and in securing local community support for ensuring, whatever our range of energy supply, that we commit to renewables of all forms in meeting our net zero commitments by 2050.

[Alan Brown]

It is interesting that the Minister seems not to care what the Secretary of State for Scotland says, but wants to listen to the people of Scotland. That is good going forward. The Vivid Economics report shows that supporting onshore wind will create 2,300 jobs in Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that the blocker to those jobs and investment in Scotland is the Scottish Secretary of State and that he put his ideological objections in writing to the BEIS Secretary?

[Chris Skidmore]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a particular issue with the Scottish Secretary of State; and I am sure that he will be happy to take up some of those issues with him at Scottish questions. All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman has made a freedom of information request to the Department. The Government have replied and that is the Government’s official response.

When it comes to renewables, let us take the positives. Let us get away from the SNP’s negativity and endless griping. There are Scottish MPs on the Government side of the House who are committed to delivering positive action to the benefit of the Scottish people—putting politics and discussions of independence aside, getting down and doing the job, delivering for the people of Scotland, and ensuring that we have offshore wind, onshore wind or whatever supply is most appropriate for Scotland.

Businesses: Late Payments

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the statement and the moves that the Government have made today. He is absolutely right about the prompt payment code: it is voluntary. As it stands, there are more than 2,000 signatories to it; they sign up and commit to paying 90% of their invoices within 60 days. As he will know, the Government initiated the new duty on companies to report biannually on payment practices. To date, we have had more than 15,000 reports for over 7,000 companies. That data has enabled the Chartered Institute of Credit Management to scrutinise the voluntary code payment data.

We have seen action. Five businesses have been removed from the code and 12 have been suspended. As I have outlined today, when people are not complying with the legislation, we will take action. We are continuing to move forward to strengthen the prompt payment code and close any holes and weaknesses that there are.

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

When it comes to cash retentions, the Minister said twice that it was up to industry to find a way forward, but they are actually a Government responsibility. It is about 40 years since it was first recommended that the use of cash retentions in the construction industry be phased out. In my time as an MP, the Government have consulted twice on the issue, voted down amendments to the Enterprise Bill, and refused to back both my private Member’s Bill and that of the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Instead of listening to the large, tier 1 contractors, will the Minister pledge to take action and give a timescale for the phasing out of the use of cash retentions in the construction industry?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of retentions. He says that this is not for industry, but for the Government. I have spoken to industry representatives and businesses about this issue, and it is clear that the industry has not come to a single way forward to deal with this. We hope that the measures that I have announced today on supply chain finance will make a big difference. With regard to cash retentions, I have been clear that if industry cannot come to a consensus on a way forward, the Government will step in and take action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right. In his time, he worked very hard to secure some of the investments that have been made. The automotive industry, along with many others, has always been clear that the strengths of the UK are at least in part drawn from our ability to export and import components very flexibly without delay. It is vital that that should continue.

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

Sales of electric cars in the UK in 2018 hovered at just 2.7%. In Norway, they rose to 31.2%, up from 20.8% in 2017. What lessons can the UK learn from a successful, driven, small independent country?

Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and there have been some excellent contributions tonight. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward this important issue and I commend the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for leading the debate. He gave an excellent speech, which illustrated the key issues at the outset, detailing his family mining history and giving the personal example that, sadly, his dad died before reaching pension age. He was correct to highlight the dramatic death rate: an average of 10,000 miners in receipt of their pension are dying a year. The death rate is rising, which means that the longer that this Government do not take any action, the more of a windfall that generates for the Treasury. That is why action is needed soon. He also highlighted the generally low pension rates that miners in the miners’ pension scheme receive. As we heard, these are not huge sums of money. That money is still difficult to live on, and the example of somebody getting just £8.50 a week was really illustrative. Overall, his contribution was measured and well delivered.

We had 12 other contributions from Back Benchers, with cross-party agreement, which is really good. I pay testament to the work by and contribution from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who unearthed the lack of actuarial advice back in 1994 and the unfairness in the fact that £1 billion spent in coalfield communities is well dwarfed by the £4.5 billion that the Government have taken out of the fund. As others have said, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) made an emotional contribution about the effect on his family. I have signed early-day motion 235 in support of changes to the 50-50 split and of the cross-party letter organised by the hon. Gentleman. Frankly, the Government response was really poor and it is good that that has been widely rebutted tonight. I come from a wider coalfield and coalmining area and I was proud as an MP to witness the unveiling of a new memorial to all the miners that were killed in Muirkirk and the surrounding villages. It is right that that goes down in lasting memory.

It has been a real disappointment that Governments of all colours have benefited from the 50:50 arrangement and that, to date, sadly, none have been willing to make any changes. In fact, if we look at the ministerial responses over the years, we see that they are actually all the same. It does not matter if it is a new Minister, a Tory Minister or a Labour Minister; they have all trotted out the same arguments, which appear to be the fact that the guarantee was welcomed at the time, that it reduces the risk on the miners’ pension scheme, that it provides an RPI uplift on pensions and that it generates higher investment return. Those are moot points. Of course, the guarantee’s existence is a good thing. However, given that the UK Government received a surplus of nearly £4.5 billion by 2018, the argument that a 50:50 split is still a fair risk and reward for the Government providing that guarantee has less and less credibility. That is further highlighted by the fact that the long-term success of the fund has not changed, despite recessions and stock market crashes along the way. As others have said, 25 years on, the risk has diminished greatly. It really does take a special type of blinkers from this Government to ignore any moral arguments on change. It is a fact that mining communities have suffered badly with the loss of coalmines, with guys left unemployed or seeking employment in poorer paid jobs. Others who have worked hard all their lives are now in poor health and widows are struggling to get by. No wonder it rankles that the UK Government are effectively still making money at their expense.

What Governments have also overlooked are the contributions holidays that were undertaken in the 1980s—money that otherwise could have been allocated for the benefit of mineworkers. Moreover, the reduced risk to the MPS resulting from the guarantee is welcome, but it is often overlooked that in 1994, during privatisation, adopting that model not only reduced the risk in the private sector but allowed the Government to get a higher return from the privatisation. Those are further things that need to be considered in the bigger picture.

Labour and Tory Ministers have long argued that the guarantee has allowed higher-risk, higher-value investments to be made and thereby resulted in returns higher than they would otherwise have been. This is correct, but the Government bandying around figures about a 33% increase is not helpful because they are based on assumptions that suit them. In addition, it is not just the fund that has grown; the UK Government’s investment reserve also benefits from the success of the performance of the MPS. That has increased in value from £1.1 billion in 2014 to £1.5 billion in 2017, which has allowed the release of £475 million to the Government in the last financial year. These are huge sums of money the Government are benefitting from. Clearly, even if we change the 50-50 split, they will still make large sums of money.

Another Government line that has been attempted over the years is that MPS trustees are happy with the current arrangements, but that is patently untrue, as the hon. Member for Easington highlighted. The trustees have written to Governments in the past, but they say that they still will not engage and make the changes, so that is another dead duck from the Government.

We need clarity about what the UK Government hope to achieve. The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has asked her officials to explore the trustees’ options for revising the scheme, so what are the Government’s aims and ideas? What progress has been made in the year since she asked that this happen? Critically, what does she mean by her comment that the revisions have to be to the “benefit of all parties”? It is clearly impossible to do the right thing by changing the share percentages without there being a financial detriment to the Treasury. That sting in the tail looks like an in-built wrecking mechanism. We need to know what she means.

I pay tribute to the Coalfield Communities Campaign for lobbing the Government and for calling this the miners’ money. In 1999, it highlighted that the average pension was then just £38 per week; today, it is about £65 per week, although some figures say it is £85. This is critical considering the benefits that would accrue if we altered the split percentages. It also shows that, although the pensions have grown with the higher investment return, the miners are not exactly living in the lap of luxury, so that is another false start in talking about percentage increases.

In 2002-03, the campaign by the Coalfield Communities Campaign led to a proposal that the split change to an 85:15 split, but the then Minister, Brian Wilson, dismissed this as

“off the radar screen in current circumstances”—[Official Report, 10 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 186WH.]

When will someone in government be brave enough to suggest what could be considered and what they would consider fair?

As I have said, the Government have benefited to the tune of £4.5 billion to date. They have not been slow to reduce tax thresholds for those earning the most money or to introduce corporation tax reductions for the largest multinational companies. These measures, along with those on inheritance tax and other things, are projected to cost the Treasury £80 billion, according to figures from the Library based on previous Red Book projections by the UK Government. Surely, then, now is the time to do the right thing for the benefit of the remaining 158,000 members of the MPS, carry out the review and get a fair and equitable split, rather than this 50-50 split.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am setting out my Department’s position. Whether a review is undertaken is a matter for the Treasury, and the Treasury’s position was set out in a letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to MPs on 14 May. That position has not changed. I am sure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other colleagues in that Department will want to reflect on any motion passed by this House, but I am trying to update the House in response to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, who asked what the Government were doing about the proposals that had previously been under discussion—the proposals that have been brought forward by the scheme’s trustees.

The proposals have been considered for several months. They are balanced, and I support them. With the support of my Department, I have formally written to the Treasury to say that we support the proposals, because the trustees have identified that protecting already accrued bonuses is more important than the 50-50 split.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister seems to be saying that the proposals being considered are from the trustees and they have not proposed any changes to the 50-50 split. Is it not the case that the trustees have said today that the Government are not willing to discuss a change to the 50-50 split? Is he saying that he thinks it is fair to maintain that 50-50 ratio?

[Andrew Stephenson]

The trustees have made it clear that protecting bonuses already accrued is their priority, rather than renegotiating a greater share of future surpluses. I have not met the trustees, and I have already given the House the date when I will be meeting them. I have seen the six proposals from the trustees, which have been considered by my predecessor and his predecessor, and I acted swiftly in my first two months in office to ensure that my Department supports those proposals and will write to the Treasury encouraging their adoption.

British Steel: EU Emissions Trading Compliance

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

What my right hon. Friend has said is not the case. Our legal obligations for 2018 would be there, and the company would have to comply. Had we left without a deal, the company would be in the position that it is in.

When it comes to the competitiveness of the UK steel sector, it is clear that the markets are international and, especially in the case of British Steel, very substantially across the continent of Europe. It has been very clear that we need to make sure that we continue to trade on terms at least as favourable as we do at the moment with the European Union, which is why both British Steel as a company and the steel sector have been absolutely clear, in terms, that we need to ratify an agreement such as has been proposed, and we need to do it very quickly.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I also put on the record my welcome for the action taken by the Government to protect 4,200 jobs; it is really important that we protect the remaining heavy industry and manufacturing facilities in the UK. That said, questions still need to be answered. The Secretary of State confirms that this is a loan, on commercial terms, to avoid the risk of a fine of half a billion pounds to British Steel. To mitigate that risk of a fine, what was to prevent British Steel from just borrowing from the market, given that it is borrowing from the Government on commercial terms? Why did this go to the eleventh hour? It seems that what is almost a gamble has been taken with British Steel in the discussions with the Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that? Were the risks identified when the Government were negotiating the extension to article 50?

In his statement, the Secretary of State talked about the need for Members to reflect on the impact of decisions or non-decisions in this place. That seems like another classic attempt to blame other Members for the Brexit mess we are in. It is not our fault—there has been a lack of leadership from the Government. For two years, the Prime Minister was telling us that no deal was much better than a bad deal, then all of sudden, near the end, it was “my deal or no way at all.” That withdrawal agreement suffered the biggest parliamentary defeat in history. Surely, the Government should have reflected on that, instead of coming back here time and again and blaming this House for the Brexit mess.

The situation is further amplified by the fact that the statement says that in the case of no deal the Government are working with the Commission about future participation in the EU ETS scheme. Surely, if the Government had made preparations for a no-deal Brexit those discussions would have already been concluded and a way forward identified.

How do we get transparency and discussions with Government and industry for companies such as British Steel and Nissan, for which back-door deals were done previously? Who misses out? How are these companies identified? Why, for example, was it left to the SNP Scottish Government, rather than the UK Government, to protect Scottish steel?

Finally, this situation proves the need for proper investment in carbon capture and storage. Peterhead has sufficient storage, and it will be ready to be utilised and operational by 2023-24. That would tie in with the Teesside cluster and help the steel industry. If the Government can find £100 million overnight for a loan, why do they not find further money for direct strategic investment, which will help heavy industry and the low carbon position?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman started out welcoming the action we have taken and ended up, it seems, withdrawing that support. I will take the first half of his statement at face value and recognise that we have taken action to deal with an unusual and urgent problem, and have done so in a way that I think has displayed some agility. Advice has been taken, which will be fully disclosed to the Committees of the House, on the terms of the agreement and how it can be commercially benchmarked. Clearly, borrowing against allowances with a short period of time before the deadline—it is in the company’s gift and the company’s obligation to comply—requires moving quickly. The judgment we took was that we wanted to make sure we could secure against the possibility of the fine, and do so in a way that was commercially benchmarked. We have done that and it can be scrutinised. The deadline was last night. The fact that I have come immediately to this House to make a statement and publish the accounting officer’s advice I hope illustrates the transparency with which we have proceeded.

On the contingency that this arrangement has had and whether a deal has been approved, I put it as a matter of fact that the reason we had to make this transaction was that we have not, as a House of Commons, agreed a Brexit deal. We have not ratified a Brexit agreement. I said to my opposite number that I welcome the constructive discussions that are taking place. I hope that in the days and weeks ahead, the hon. Gentleman’s party might approach them in the same spirit and try to come to an agreement so that not just the steel industry but every industry in the country can have confidence in the terms of our relationship with Europe in the years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise concerns about banks pulling out of our high streets. Those concerns have also been raised by many other MPs across the country. High street banks do offer a valuable service for consumers, and that is why I am grateful to the Post Office for renegotiating the banking framework, which will offer better payments to postmasters providing banking services in those high streets. However, he is quite right: we do need to work closely with local authorities at a regional level to make sure that the services being offered on the high street are those that people wish to see.

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

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland put in writing his objection to onshore wind finding a route to market in Scotland? Why will the Government not release that correspondence in the interests of transparency?

[Greg Clark]

I am not aware of the inquiry that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I will follow it up with the Scottish Secretary.

Constitutional Law

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He has made my day and cheered me up—honestly, I had to check my notes to see whether I was in the right debate or whether he was, because we seemed to go slightly off topic. It also seems strange to complain about SNP complaints, while continuing to put the boot into the SNP—so, that was hypocrisy writ large. However, I take his point: where they can, it is good that the two Governments work well together. He kept talking about this good working relationship. He did not answer the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) about how the Secretary of State for Scotland is currently blocking the development of onshore wind in Scotland. I want to challenge the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who is at the Dispatch Box—if she could look up, please. Her Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland have refused to release correspondence between the two Departments where it is quite clear that he has voiced his objections. For full transparency, will they release this information so that what the Scottish Secretary is doing to block onshore wind in Scotland is out there in the public domain?

Let me turn to the SI. Its title on the Order Paper is “Constitutional Law (Motion)”—how grand does that sound? No wonder a constitutional law motion is in the main Chamber. Then we look at paragraph 2.1 of the explanatory notes:

“The purpose of this…is…to correct amendments made to the Electricity Act 1989”.

Paragraph 6.3 states:

“This instrument is made to correct an oversight in the 2015 Order by amending the definition of ‘relevant waters’ in section 36D(6) of, and paragraph 5B(6) of Schedule 8 to, the 1989 Act”.

Paragraph 14.1 on monitoring and review states:

“The instrument will achieve its policy objective of amending a legislative oversight and therefore monitoring and review are not required.”

This is a simple, technical amendment, as has been said, so why it is in the main Chamber? It is a complete farce and another indication of this zombie Government who have nothing to do because everything is stalled because of Brexit. We keep hearing about getting on with the day job, but it is quite clear that the Government are not getting on with their day job and that everything is stalled. We had a similar SI in a normal Delegated Legislation Committee and it took 10 minutes. Partly because the hon. Member for Stirling talked longer than the two Front-Bench spokespersons, we have thankfully managed to drag this out, and I am doing my wee bit to drag it out in the main Chamber as well.

That said, we welcome the streamlining of this process for challenging Scottish Ministers’ decisions about marine licence applications. As the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, the Scottish Government are a world leader in the fight against climate change and in advancing renewable energy. The Scottish Government want to have 50% of all energy sources supplied by renewables by 2030. It does figure that it would be much better for the Scottish Government to have even greater powers over energy policy and for that not be blocked by the likes of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

In Scotland, we have the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which is also a world leader, with the world’s largest tidal steam array and the world’s most powerful tidal steam turbine. A recent announcement heralds the world’s first centre aimed at accelerating the development of materials and structures for tidal energy, which will be based in Rosyth. It is a collaboration between Babcock and the University of Edinburgh. The FASTBLADE project is worth £2.4 million, so we look forward to seeing that being developed. What funds, if any, will the Government provide for that and for future projects? I note that the offshore wind sector deal gives the University of Hull £5.5 million for its technology development. We should like to see the same provision for marine development in Scotland.

When will the Government change the regulations on the Electricity Act 1989 to define electricity storage as a distinct subset of generation? That change will facilitate the co-location of batteries with renewable energy, as the Minister acknowledged in a parliamentary answer in March and in another last week. She described the amendment as “an important measure” and said that it would be implemented “when parliamentary time allows.” I suggest that a full debate in the main Chamber provides sufficient parliamentary time to amend the regulations. That is part of the day job that the Government should be getting on with.

The Government also need to move away from their obsession with nuclear power. It is too dear; it is a dead duck; and it is clear that investors are walking away from it. I do not understand why they continue down that path.

We welcome the corrections of the previous oversight. They should mean that the appeal process is clear, within the remit of Scottish Ministers, and within the remit of the Scottish legal jurisdiction. The intention of the 2014 Act was to streamline the planning application and appeal process for renewable energy to facilitate business deployment and to give investors more certainty. We therefore welcome this measure, which has been agreed with Scottish Ministers. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, better regulation is good for everyone.

[Claire Perry]

I think we have seen an outbreak of consensus, which is always welcome on the Floor of the House. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), and commend him on his tartan tie: I feel that I am a little underdressed for this debate.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), who is no longer in the Chamber, asked me to confirm that the Act applies to the geography of the site and not to the business location. I can confirm that to the House.

I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) raised our eyes beyond this narrow definition of the law to the real prize, asking what we could do to facilitate our ongoing leadership in the decarbonisation agenda. The answer is much more. I was also delighted by his support for the offshore wind sector deal, which is utterly transformational. We have the best location in the world for offshore wind generation in terms of wind speed and the shallowness of the marine basin. As he knows, there is an important opportunity for the transfer of skills from the world-leading oil and gas industry to offshore wind generation as part of the transition.

There is, of course, a series of questions to be asked about onshore wind. One concerns the size of wind farms. I have debated that subject many times with Opposition Members, but I should point out that the Scottish Government’s own analysis shows that more than 2GW of wind is already at the planning stage. Not all of that will come to fruition, but we are engaged in an enormous process of re-powering and upgrading existing onshore wind farms.

My hon. Friend also mentioned—and this is absolutely my experience as well—that the day-to-day working relationships with the Ministers in the devolved Administration are excellent. I chair a quadrilateral meeting which we hold regularly to discuss Brexit preparations, and our conversations are professional and focus on working together. There is a great deal of trust. Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), I would far rather see harmonisation than dissent in such conversations. It is always dispiriting that we almost never hear his party welcome any of the progress that the UK Government are making. [Interruption.] I am afraid that his speech was delivered in such a welter of negativity that I may not have picked it up.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Claire Perry]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and allow him to congratulate our four nations on the progress that they have made.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister is obviously not familiar with my personality. That is how I deliver compliments—in amongst that wave of negativity.

What I was going to ask the Minister was this. Will the Government release the correspondence between the Secretary of State for Scotland and her Department, rather than hiding behind the freedom of information exemption, claiming that it is Government policy formulation?

[Claire Perry]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regain his usual sunny nature should we have an Easter break next week. As he will know, what he has asked is not for me to decide. These observations are made to the Secretary of State, and it would be wrong for me to comment.