amendment of the law
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
My constituents will be very disappointed about a number of things that were not in the Budget—the lack of real support for new house-building, for young people and long-term jobs, and for small businesses in my constituency. Furthermore, there is no break in the cloud as far as the continued savage attacks on local government services are concerned.
However, I want to talk about something that clearly is in the Budget, and has been in Budgets for the past two or three years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned, it is a policy that has nothing to do with what happened under the previous Labour Government; I am talking about the Chancellor’s own policy—or policy mess—on carbon price support.
When the Chancellor announced that he was freezing the carbon price support at £18 to about 2020, I was not too upset; in fact, I was interested to see this latest development in his astonishing zigzag policy. After all, in the 2011 Budget, when the Chancellor invented that particular policy, he said that the carbon price support was designed to
“encourage further investment in low-carbon generation by providing greater support and certainty to the carbon price.”
The figure was revised wildly upwards in Budget 2013, and then radically downwards in Budget 2014. The Chancellor’s steering of the carbon price support, which started last April and supposedly goes on to 2020, has been rather more “Keystone Cops” than keystone policy.
Essentially, support for energy intensive industries, which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned, is coming out of the money raised from the policy being steered wildly upwards in Budget 2011 and onwards. I have always thought that the right thing to do is to support the EU emissions trading system and get it into good order for the long term. However, when the level was revised wildly upwards in Budget 2013, as a result of the then perceived crash and the possible long-term inertness of the EU ETS, I thought that that level of unilateral levy was likely to be unsustainable.
What this policy mess demonstrates is that we cannot do things unilaterally and in isolation without there being consequences. After all, in the Energy Bill, the carbon price floor was prayed in aid as giving out a long-term signal that would render changes in the emissions performance standard superfluous. Even at the end of the Energy Bill, when the Opposition moved an amendment to include existing coal-fired power stations in the EPS, the same argument was used—the floor price would have long-term continuity, which would mean that we could rely on it as an instrument to ensure that there would be little or no unabated coal in the system in the 2020s. We did not need any other instruments.
Now, with the freeze on carbon price support, it is likely that coal will trade allowances far further forward into 2020, and measures in the Budget to support carbon capture and storage are, ironically, less likely to be taken up as a result of that calculation. It is also likely that the reliance that gas has put on the consequences of carbon price support to make coal prices over the period less competitive will mean that advance gas investment will be dampened, which has consequences for the extent to which additional funding for the capacity payment market may also be necessary. It is an additional amount of money coming on the back of trying to make sure that there is less money available over the period of this particular policy.
Furthermore, it is not really true that, as the Red Book says, the buying power of the levy control framework, which sets out the amount of support available for low carbon and renewable investment until 2020, will be unaffected by other Budget decisions. It directly means that renewable obligation buying power, part of the levy control framework system, will be changed because the obligation was based originally on 2011 assumptions about the level of carbon price over the period. The relationship between the strike price and the reference price for contracts for difference will change, which means that we will be paying more out of a fixed fund to make up the difference between strike and reference price. The buying power of the levy control framework will certainly be reduced and there will be a smaller quantum support to go into new entrant projects for renewable energy over the period.
The Government should state to the House what they consider to be the consequences of their decision on carbon price support and set out measures that will need to go alongside it to maintain the position that they themselves had previously said was dependent on the trajectory of the carbon price. Above all, what all this shows is that non-joined-up government has consequences.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Q4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on levels of construction output.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q11. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on fiscal incentives for the construction of affordable housing.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Government are committed to supporting new housing supply while maximising value for money. The Government committed £4.5 billion to support 170,000 affordable homes over the spending review period, and we have added a further 30,000 to that figure through the guarantee programme that was announced last year and extended in the Budget a few weeks ago.
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman should recognise that—while the previous Government presided over a decline of more than 400,000 in the number of affordable properties—the Government’s action to increase the numbers by 200,000 is a welcome support to the construction sector, as is the Help to Buy scheme that we announced in the Budget, which will produce a significant additional demand for properties to help the companies to which he refers.
Dr Whitehead
Does the Minister not recognise that the Help to Buy scheme will not produce a single new affordable home? It will simply enable people to buy other people’s homes. In my constituency, it costs eight times the average annual income to purchase a house in the city, so does the Minister not accept that action to improve affordable house building should have been taken in the Budget?
Danny Alexander
The Help to Buy shared equity scheme is available for the purchase of new build properties only. It is a multi-billion pound scheme that will help to fund an extra 75,000 or so construction sites in the next couple of years—a welcome boost to the construction sector. In the Budget, we announced funding to extend the guarantee scheme for housing associations to build new affordable properties, doubling its extent to ensure that 30,000 affordable homes are built over and above the 170,000 already announced. The hon. Gentleman is a close observer of these matters, and it will not have escaped his attention that the net number of affordable homes during Labour’s time in office fell by 421,000. That is not a record for him to be proud of.
Green Economy
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I oppose the motion. I suspect that I will be the only person to do so. It is not because we cannot have green economy. We could—indeed, we once had a totally green economy. We relied on windmills to grind our flour, on watermills to saw our wood, on horsepower for transport, and on biomass—as burning wood is now called—for heat, but we abandoned those when we discovered that coal could fuel a steam engine, that oil could fuel the internal combustion engine, and that gas and nuclear could give us electricity. Since then, we have enjoyed huge increases in our material standard of living based very largely on comparatively cheap energy from fossil fuels.
The great Victorian economist, Jevons, pointed out nearly a century and a half ago why coal had ousted wind:
“The first great requisite of motive power is that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.”
Much the same can be said about the unreliability of solar and the discontinuity of tidal energy. My hon. Friends may want to return to a mediaeval economy that relies on unreliable, high-cost water, sunshine, wood and wind, but I do not. I am a conservative, not a reactionary. Of course, it may be that some time in the future new sources of energy will become available that are as reliable as, and cheaper than, fossil fuels—perhaps thorium reactors, nuclear fusion or cheaper battery storage, in conjunction with the intermittent renewables that we are developing at the moment. I will rejoice if those come about, but they are some way off.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that since the time of the quote he read out, we have had three further industrial revolutions, which makes his assumptions completely obsolete, and that we are in the middle of a further clean-tech and biotech industrial revolution that will make obsolete the previous assumptions on industrial revolutions? Has he taken that into account in his calculations?
Mr Lilley
I do not know which industrial revolutions the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but they certainly did not rely on our subsidising the use of more expensive energy to replace less expensive energy.
There are perfectly respectable, if not entirely convincing, arguments for saying that we have to replace cheap energy with expensive, less reliable energy to reduce carbon emissions, and that that is a price worth paying, to coin a phrase. However, the premise of this debate is that we can generate economic growth by introducing fiscal measures to subsidise and promote green energy. Let us be clear what that means: it means subsidising the replacement of comparatively cheap and reliable energy from fossil fuels with more expensive and intermittent energy from renewables.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow someone who can be defined as the Don Quixote of this debate, both figuratively and literally tilting at windmills.
The answer to the speech we have just heard is that the green economy is about not just underwriting one form of energy out at sea, but putting the entire economy on a green footing in terms of resources, energy and demand, and including our homes and our vehicles. As the Government said a little while ago:
“A green economy is not a sub-set of the economy at large—our whole economy needs to be green. A green economy will maximise value and growth across the whole economy, while managing natural assets sustainably.”
That is what a green economy is about. Those are not my words, but the first paragraph of the Government document, “Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy”. There is precisely one paragraph in the document about what the fiscal incentives to move to that green economy might consist of, so this debate is timely. We must ask what fiscal incentives we should put in place to bring about those changes.
Our aim in the economic recovery should not be simply to return the UK economy to business as usual as it was before the crash; it should be consciously to use the opportunity provided by the need to reinvest and to re-engineer our economy to make decisive moves towards the green, sustainable, low-carbon economy that the first paragraph of that document suggests we should be aiming for. We need to be clear about what that entails in how we craft our fiscal policy.
The emergence of a green economy cannot be brought about just by changing the dials on a few economic levers; it is fundamentally asymmetric with what has gone before. Low-carbon sustainable energy, for example, does not have an investment or operational pattern that is anything like what we have been used to for the past 100 years. We cannot construct the next generation of low-carbon power plants and providers on the basis of what has gone before.
We can no longer rely on the assumption that we can generally predict what capacity will be needed and then work out how best to meet it. Future energy policy must be based on investing first in consciously reducing demand and then in decarbonising the remaining demand. In doing that, we have to move to a different paradigm of investment, because demand reduction is a process not an asset, and because low-carbon plants are capital intensive but mean on fuel. In other words, low-carbon plants take a lot of money to construct but, once constructed, use fuel that is either free or recovered from other processes. The model of low and basic construction costs and investment in sourcing, transporting and using fuel, and paying for it as we go, is no longer applicable.
We can no longer rely on the assumption that the purpose of investment in resourcing the economy lies in procuring material into the economy, using it and disposing of the consequences. A linear model of investment and expenditure no longer applies. We will need to move increasingly to a circular-resource economy, in which we do not throw things away—there will be nowhere to throw them. We still throw things away, however. Something like 520 million tonnes of material comes into our economy for domestic consumption, and 200 million tonnes leaves as waste. Only 20% of our material is sourced from secondary inputs.
The changes we need are about investing not just in the green economy, but in jobs. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, they are real jobs for the future. Moving our resource base to the 70% EU27 recycling target would create something like half a million jobs in the UK by the early 2020s.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend says about jobs. If Hull becomes a wind turbine manufacturing site, 700 jobs will be created directly and up to 10,000 jobs will be created in the supply chain. Those are real jobs for real people in my constituency.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not only are the jobs real, but they are long-term, skilled jobs. Other countries are investing heavily in such jobs as that sixth-wave energy and industrial revolution takes off across the world.
My reference in an intervention to the several industrial revolutions since the horse and cart and steam relates to the fact that we are now beyond the information and technology revolution and moving into the clean-tech biotech revolution, which is taking off throughout the world. Who is the world leader in clean energy? We talk about its pollution and energy profligacy, but it is China—a country that is clearly engaged in a conspiracy of useless non-job creation in the green economy.
Mr Lilley
I pointed out that the Chinese are allowed to subsidise their manufacturers of, for example, wind turbines, whereas we are not. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should subsidise such manufacturers, and how does he propose to alter the EU regulations to enable that?
Dr Whitehead
As it happens, EU regulations enable the underwriting of investment in technology that will lead to a lower-carbon economy. The renewables obligation is regarded as state aid, but such investment can be underwritten precisely because it brings new technology to market, reduces its costs and increases its prevalence. That is why the Chinese invested £34 billion in clean energy in 2009, compared with £18 billion in the US. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has said, the goods for low-carbon markets are expected to reach something like £4 trillion by 2015. Put simply, if we are not in that market, we will be sidelined not temporarily, but permanently.
Curiously, the recession gives our country an opportunity to be far more proactive than we might otherwise be. The cost of capital is low and liquidity is high because of the paradox of thrift: there is no danger that investment in green goods, services and plants will crowd out other forms of investment. Fiscally, we can go for it, but in view of the asymmetry, there must be clear and long-term signals.
What might we do? We could invest in decarbonising our homes, for climate change purposes and for demand reduction purposes. We should insulate homes to make them fuel poverty-proof—as we know, the green deal will only scratch the surface. We will get £4 billion per annum over the next 15 years from the EU emissions trading scheme, carbon trading and the carbon floor price. As a fiscal measure—without hypothecating what is in the tax pot—we could invest a large amount of that money in ensuring that our homes are energy-efficient.
We should invest in low-carbon energy provision in the way that I have outlined. If the state wills the ends of that provision, it must underwrite it. That need not mean putting money in the pot, but it does mean underwriting at least some of the risk. It is ridiculous, for example, that there is no state backing for the contracts for difference that will replace the renewables obligation under the Energy Act 2011, and that no demand-side measures, underwritten by feed-in tariffs, are being introduced under the Act. We can get long-term value by taking such fiscal action.
Fiscal policy need not involve underwriting money. Holding the ring on risk and bringing new forms of low-carbon power home is key. To get us to a position in which we have a substantial number of ultra-low carbon vehicles on the road, why not have a “feebate” system, whereby we use, as a fiscal measure, additional fees on high-carbon consuming vehicles to underwrite the new low-carbon vehicles that come on stream? We have a target of 1.7 million ultra-low-carbon vehicles on our roads by the early 2020s. That is the sort of measure we should undertake.
Above all, we should get real about the green investment bank. The bank will have £3 billion as a fund until 2016, or perhaps later, depending on whether the Chancellor decides that it is ready for investment as a whole, yet last year KfW, the German public green investment bank, invested £24 billion—more than a third of its £70 billion —on energy and climate change measures. We can do that if the green investment bank is a bank, but it needs the ability to raise bonds and money at an early stage. That is the sort of fiscal underwriting we need for this green energy, resource and social revolution that we are going through. We need to get on with that urgently, and I urge the House to support the motion to assist with that process.
Dr Whitehead
I am taking up the Minister’s invitation to intervene. Will she consider, even at this late hour, telling us about electricity market reform and how it affects the Treasury at the next meeting of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which I hope will be held next week? May I assure her that if she does take up our invitation, she will receive a warm welcome and some very straightforward and supportive questions during that discussion?
Miss Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good-natured reiteration of an offer to appear before the Committee. I have not appeared before it because it is scrutinising the draft legislation of another Department. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who was also here this afternoon, explained to the Committee this week that he, of course, is representing the Government’s collective position. Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s faith in me, I regret that I do not feel that I could usefully add more than that which the Secretary of State has already provided to the Committee. May I also point out that electricity market reform, as my right hon. Friend will have set out, is an early and credible signal to investors that the Government are serious about encouraging investment in low-carbon electricity generation now?
I shall now deal with some of the points made in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey exhorted the Government to be clearer on wind energy. I say to him that the Government have been conducting a thorough review of the support provided by the renewables obligation and the Department of Energy and Climate Change will publish the results of it shortly. I know that he and others will take a deep interest in that.
Let me discuss other ways in which the Government have set out action, for example, in the area of accounting for our natural capital. The natural capital committee will help the Government to prioritise actions to support and improve the UK’s natural assets. I reassure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North that sustainability is considered when developing policy. Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book already does that in guidance, clearly setting out how Departments can take into account natural capital and long-term sustainability issues.
May I further reassure the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on the green investment bank? The important point is that the GIB pathfinder—UK Green Investments—is now open for business, with more than 20 individual projects under active consideration, including in renewable energy, waste management and energy-efficiency. All those are large markets with enormous growth potential. Calls have been made this afternoon for it to move forward more quickly and be able to borrow. I wish to reassure the House that it has been given £3 billion in its initial capitalisation and has the potential to borrow from April 2015 when debt is falling as a percentage of GDP—that is a crucial point.
Across the economy, we are focusing on creating the conditions for private sector investment and growth, including through innovation. As Members would expect, that includes supporting private sector investment and focusing on sustainability. I could point out fiscal steps that are in line with the motion, including a new above the line credit to support research and development activity in the UK and increases to the rate of enhanced deductions of SME research and development tax credit. Together with the green investment bank, those measures will play a crucial role in encouraging innovation in the green technology sector, which will have benefits for the wider economy, jobs and growth. Together with the green deal, the measures will help householders both directly and indirectly. I can reassure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that her calls for a whole-house approach in retrofitting are in line with what the green deal and the ECO aim to achieve. Those schemes also target funding at low-income households, which is very important for the battle against fuel poverty.
Regulation can play an important role in setting common standards and expectations. The Government recently announced that we will introduce mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases for all companies quoted on the London stock exchange. Again, that goes back to the theme of transparency. In this current economic climate, it is crucial to make it simpler for businesses and industry to meet their environmental responsibilities. We will continue to review and amend existing fiscal instruments and regulatory instruments to ensure they remain focused on achieving both economic and environmental objectives. An example of that is the review of the carbon reduction commitment scheme. Budget 2012 announced a consultation on proposals to reduce administrative burdens in that scheme and the Government are considering the responses to the consultation, which has just closed.
Let me return to the importance of this afternoon’s debate. It has been interesting and has demonstrated the importance of appropriate Government action across a breadth of sectors and using various tools. That action must encourage and drive forward an environmentally sustainable and growing economy. It must pay attention to skills, and I was interested to hear the calls for attention to be paid to the high level of skills we can achieve in the British economy in a fully competitive sense. Once again, I welcome the passionate speeches from hon. Friends and hon. Members. I fully agree with those who have said growth and greenness are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. This Government want an economy that is growing, balanced and sustainable, which is good for businesses and for households. The actions that this Government are taking will help us get there and I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the House for raising the issue.
Global Economy
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
We recognise the specific needs of the rural economy. Meeting them is one of the specific work strands in the second phase of the growth review. I know something of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. One of the absolute keys to rural economic development is getting the infrastructure right, especially rural broadband, which will open up all sorts of business opportunities in what would previously have been regarded as quite remote places. That is why we are right to be investing in rural broadband in Wales and across the UK.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor take the opportunity today to repudiate the OBR’s linkage of low growth with a requirement of £46 billion additional borrowing over the next period? If he will not, what additional cuts is he planning in order to avoid that outcome?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands two things. First, the OBR is independent. If it is going to work as a permanent institution, it will need the support of the official Opposition. I hope that that is forthcoming, not just in the letter but in the spirit. There should not be a constant demand for the Chancellor of the day to provide their own fiscal forecasts. Secondly, as I say, we have put in place a credible deficit reduction plan. We heard from the shadow Chancellor that Labour needed a credible deficit reduction plan as well. Not a single Labour Member, including him, has proposed a single pound of spending cuts. Until the Labour party gets that credible plan, it will not really be able to participate in a sensible debate.
Summer Adjournment
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Approximately 7.5 million to 8 million tonnes of waste wood is produced every year. It is mostly construction waste, and the greater part—some 80%—is landfilled, which is a far higher proportion than for other waste items. About 1.2 million tonnes is recycled and reused for animal bedding, plywood, fibreboard and so on, but energy is recovered from only about 0.3 million tonnes or 4% of the total. However, according to Eunomia Research & Consulting, a net estimated saving of 1,400 kg of CO2 per tonne of wood can be made where waste wood is used as fuel for biomass energy. If waste food in landfill was sent to digestion with wood to energy recovery, the joint product would be about 42 TW of energy a year, or getting on for a fifth of our renewable energy target, by 2020.
The benefits of diverting wood and indeed other categories of waste from landfill are clear and straightforward. Despite the strides that have been taken to reduce landfill as a destination for our waste, we still have a long way to go, and for some waste streams, as I have illustrated, almost the whole distance. So how might we get moving on this diversion? There have been suggestions that such wastes should simply be banned from landfill. That is what a number of countries do, and that in itself stimulates substantially the sort of use that I have outlined. That appears to be the Government’s intention, because in the waste review 2011 they stated:
“As a starting point, in 2012 we will consult on whether to introduce a restriction on the landfilling of wood waste…Building on this we will review the case for restrictions on sending other materials to landfill over the course of the Parliament”.
That is encouraging until we recognise that that is exactly where we were in 2009. The 2009 renewable energy strategy stated that the Government would consult later that year on banning certain kinds of material from landfill. In March 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did indeed produce such a consultation with a view to banning a number of wastes from landfill. That consultation set out an EU target that by 2020 a minimum of 70% by weight of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste should be prepared for reuse, or should be recycled or recovered. We have a long way to go on that target.
The results of the consultation were “published”—I say that advisedly—in September of last year. Hon. Members will have to work very hard to find them because, astonishingly, they were published straight to DEFRA’s archive, and I am not sure that that counts as publication at all. Fortunately, the Welsh Assembly Government published the responses to their part of the consultation on their website, and hon. Members can access the results there. I suppose that it is not surprising that the consultation responses were smuggled out and filed away so abruptly, because a landfill ban was supported by over two thirds of consultees. However, the Government’s response was that they were
“not minded to introduce landfill bans in England at the present time”
but would reach a view on the best way to ensure waste was dealt with in the most appropriate way as part of the waste policy review that was announced by Secretary of State earlier this year.
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, that waste review was under way at the same time as the consultation, following which the Government decided to consult on a landfill ban of wood followed by other waste, with a view to banning them between 2012 and 2015.
If a consultation had taken place, why have another one? And why did the Government say that they were not minded to introduce a landfill ban if they might do so just a few months later? Why hide the results of such a consultation from public view at a time when they were consulting on something very similar? If we really wanted to make progress on such a ban—and I think the case for doing so is overwhelming—would it not be easier to note the consultation results and get on with it? I fear that I am missing something, but I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will be able to put me right. At the very least, I hope that he can restore the results of the consultation to the DEFRA website so that we can all see what has transpired, then perhaps get on with it substantially before 2015.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Chris Kelly—as long as you do not call me Madam Deputy Speaker.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I entirely disagree. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been at a meeting with representatives of the solar industry that took place a few days ago in Portcullis House. We were shown presentations by Ernst and Young and others which demonstrated that if a small amount is invested now, solar energy will be able to compete with all fossil fuels and with nuclear power in four or five years.
Although an improved carbon floor price mechanism could help to deliver a less carbon-intensive energy sector, it is important for the Government not to see it as a “silver bullet” solution. Other stronger levers, such as a well managed—I underline “well managed”—feed-in tariff regime and a strong emissions performance standard must also be part of the overall picture. Sadly, however, the Government are falling short in those respects as well. I should like them to devote at least as much effort to stepping up their work at EU level to ensure that the next phase of the EU emissions trading scheme is much more effective than the current phase. The recent collapse in the cost of EU carbon allowances under the scheme is clear evidence of their over-allocation, and the shortcomings of the scheme are becoming increasingly obvious.
I should also like the Government to work with European partners to ensure that, as a minimum, allowances are in line with the policy of cutting EU emissions by between 80% and 95% by 2050, as agreed by member states; that allowances cannot be banked from the second phase of the EU ETS into the third phase; and that a reserve price is set on the auction of permits into the market. Any permits that the market does not want to buy at the reserve price or more should be retired from the scheme.
I urge the Government to undertake to produce the report for which the amendment calls, and to take the opportunity to show how the benefits of a carbon floor price can be maximised and any unintended consequences eliminated. If the carbon floor price is to be effective, we need a tax on the windfall profits of the nuclear industry, along with flanking measures to ensure that those in fuel poverty do not suffer as a result of this policy.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already suggested that those in favour of a carbon floor price should explain how it could be introduced in a different way from that proposed by the Government. I imagine that she will return to that subject at the end of the debate, but I suggest that she need only look at her own consultation document, which led to the amount that has been established and the mechanism by which the floor price works.
The consultation document posited a £1 difference between a Europe emissions trading scheme and a carbon floor price, certainly in respect of the starting period. It also warned about how far away from that £1 difference a floor price might go and what might happen to energy prices in the rest of Europe. As people who contributed to that consultation document suggested, because our energy supply is highly interconnected with that of Europe, a substantial difference could lead to investment going to where the sale price is cheaper, with, perhaps, new gas-fired power stations being developed on the other end of an interconnector rather than lower-carbon power stations being developed at our end of an interconnector.
Justine Greening
Clause 78 and schedule 20 amend the climate change levy to introduce a carbon price floor for electricity generation. We have had a helpful and interesting debate on the two amendments and I shall do my best in the time available to try to address as many of the points that were raised as possible. Before I do that, it is probably worth returning to the question of why this measure is necessary in the first place. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) spent some time setting that out in her speech.
We all recognise that the UK needs significant new investment in low-carbon electricity generation over the coming decades. As the debate has shown, we do not want that to be the only thing that we encourage over the coming years. We also want to encourage a broader transition to a low-carbon economy. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed out, many industries that have been mentioned today in the context of the challenges they face have the chance to benefit from their role in the low-carbon economy of the future.
We need significant new investment in low-carbon electricity generation. As well as preparing for an increase in demand for electricity over the following decades, the UK must meet its legally binding CO2 emissions reduction targets, which require an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. That is why in the Budget, following consultation, we announced that the UK would introduce a minimum carbon price. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) pointed out, we included a number of different scenarios in that consultation so that we could understand and get feedback from stakeholders on the impact of the different scenarios. In fact the carbon price floor will provide a strong incentive for billions of pounds of new low-carbon investment.
Dr Whitehead
Does the hon. Lady agree that none of the scenarios in the consultation document included the idea that there should be a £5 premium on the emissions trading scheme as a result of the introduction of a carbon floor price?
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
I understand the concern, and I know that it has been expressed by a number of lobby groups, although I have to say that I think it has been grossly exaggerated. The purpose of the carbon price floor is to ensure a stronger, and strengthening, market over future years for investment in low-carbon energy. It will deliver a genuine incentive for green and renewable energies to be developed and invested in. Meeting the carbon reduction targets, which I think all Members support, will require several tens, or even hundreds, of billions of pounds of new investment in renewable and other energy sources, and I think that introducing a carbon price floor is exactly the right mechanism to achieve that.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that raising the carbon price floor initially to such a level above the EU emissions trading scheme will not actually reduce emissions across Europe because they are fixed on a European basis, will risk investment moving to the other end of the interconnectors, and will move us substantially away from consultation on the issue of £1 above EU ETS, which I think most people would have accepted as a starting point for a longer-term carbon price floor to move towards the 2030s? Does he accept that he has got that price floor wrong, and that he needs to review it so as to make it actually work by genuinely increasing investment and reducing emissions?
Danny Alexander
No, I do not accept that we have got this wrong; I think we have got it right. The level of the carbon price floor was set out in the consultation. A range of options were given, and we have taken a mid-point of the various responses we received. I think it is right that this country is the first country to introduce a carbon price floor. That is a very important mechanism to help us deliver on the low-carbon power generation to which I thought those on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House were as committed as we are on this side. Of course this will have an impact; it is designed to have an impact. It is designed to have the impact of ensuring that companies and industries seeking to invest in low-carbon power generation have a clear sense of certainty about the price they will receive for that energy over future years. As a result of that, our country can ensure that we deliver on our targets for renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction, which are, I hope, very important to every Member of this House.
Amendment of the Law
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady will be aware that we have abolished the density targets, which led to a glut of flats. We will ensure that the market decides a reasonable mix. That seems to be a more sensible and reasonable way of going about the process.
For too long, the planning system has been a source of friction between councils, communities and businesses.
Mr Pickles
In a moment. The purpose of the planning system is to ensure that the country benefits from the right kind of development—not to frustrate and delay, and generate endless paperwork. The Budget therefore confirms fundamental changes. By the end of the year, we aim to condense the morass of unwieldy national planning policies into one concise, easy-to-use document.
At the heart of our approach to planning is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. We need a system that consistently and predictably says yes to the right kinds of development. We will consult on plans to streamline the information required to support planning applications. We will introduce a planning guarantee so that no planning application will spend more than 12 months with decision makers, when a timely appeal is made. We will consult on proposals to bring empty commercial buildings back into use as residential properties. Let us cut the red tape and make it easier to turn run-down old eyesores into much-needed new housing. At the same time, we will maintain protection for the environment, including by safeguarding the green belt, which was under threat from Labour’s regional plans.
Mr Pickles
The coalition agreement is not quite holy writ, but it is pretty close to it, so of course those paragraphs will be included.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for not giving way earlier.
Dr Whitehead
Does the Secretary of State consider that his abandonment of the code for sustainable development and the target for zero-carbon home building by 2016 will aid sustainable development, build more houses or merely build less worse houses?
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
This Budget trumpets much about growth, and indeed accompanying it we have a whole White Paper, “The Plan for Growth”, which claims to set the seal on those aims so loudly trumpeted. In truth, however, the Budget contains very little that, in the real world, stimulates economic activity or, in a time of deficits or depression, shows any sign of moving the economy forward so that the Government can tackle the deficit other than by just cutting everything they can lay their hands on.
That is a conundrum. Unless all those measures are a cynical put-on, the Government obviously believe that they are setting out a path for growth. They have, as a default position on the economy, chosen a particular path that they believe will, if followed, lead to growth. In technical terms, that assumption is called the Ricardian equivalence: the assumption that Government borrowing is essentially deferred taxation; and that, even in a depressed economy, it is important to send out a signal that the Government will not borrow, so that people discount what they had set aside to cope with what they saw as deferred taxation and, instead, invest and spend, thereby miraculously bringing about growth, deficit reduction and so on. In reality—and in previous depressions—the opposite is usually the public’s reaction, but we will pass that by.
Then, the public, once they are cured of the unhealthy habit of holding money back to deal with perceived deferred taxation, must also have regulations and other matters stripped away if they are to invest and spend. Hence it is necessary to pull apart regulations, collapse planning impediments and so on.
This Budget sets out that false premise admirably, although some of the zeal with which it is being pursued is, to say the least, a little alarming, especially as I imagine the Government still believe that growth should be low-carbon growth in order for them to be, as the Prime Minister has stated “the greenest Government ever”.
The removal of most housing targets and the new announcement of the removal of any prescribed level of house building on brownfield sites, which I am sure is bad news for the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and the fields near his constituency, both follow from the philosophy of pulling down regulation so that the private sector can supposedly rush in to invest where the public sector has withdrawn. That must come as a shock, however, to anyone who believed for example that being the greenest Government ever implied some view about the merits of arbitrarily concreting over at a random cost to the environment and to carbon emissions targets.
Two other planning and investment decisions in the Budget must come as a similar shock. The green investment bank has been downgraded to a “fund” for the foreseeable future, so even the merits of the private sector investing in the bank have been eschewed in favour of its functioning as a bank only, as the Budget papers state,
“once the target for debt to be falling as a percentage of GDP has been met.”
In other words, “After all these good people have rushed in and invested to replace the loss of public sector funds, then we might consider some public sector-based funding, even if it is with private money, at a point when the prime need will have passed anyway.”
Not the most significant measure, but perhaps the most shocking—indeed, the measure in the smallest print—is the decision to remove the target to require homes to be built on a zero-carbon basis by 2016, as the Government say:
“To ensure that it remains viable to build new houses”.
Not green, not worried about quality or longevity—anything goes so long as the theory of Ricardian equivalence is upheld. The Government are also apparently holding discussions with industry to see how the principle of the green deal can be extended to new homes. The code for sustainable buildings has been taken out and shot, and B&Q is now going to come in and put the roof on our houses once they are built. Even if that supposition were to be taken just a little seriously, then the signal that has already been loudly given out that spending is to be cut savagely and that the fear of deferred taxation is no more should have started to bear fruit. However, it has not, and that, among other things, is why the Government have had to downgrade their growth forecast so significantly. Consumer and business confidence has collapsed and stays at a very low point. Unemployment is rising, house prices are uncertain or falling, and we had negative growth in the fourth quarter of last year.
Let me give a palimpsest. In my constituency, virtually all the day centre schemes for the elderly are to close in mid-April because the money has been cut. According to Ricardian equivalence, that is a signal to get these old people on their feet and investing in their own facilities—perhaps a private entrepreneur could come in and invest in a gap in the market—but of course that is not going to happen. Jobs are being lost, old people are staying indoors instead of going out and about, and ill-health among elderly people is likely to increase. In short, it hurts but it certainly will not work. No amount of flannel to disguise what an empty set of propositions this Budget, this plan for growth and this massacre of planning and sensible regulation consists of will pass muster. It really is time for plan B, or at least to start reading rather more sensible economists.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Alan Whitehead Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Huhne
The right hon. Gentleman mutters from a sedentary position that that was not mentioned in the Budget speech, but the Budget documents contain a clear commitment in that regard. It is very clearly something that we are proceeding with rather dramatically.
The point that I want to make is that this will be the first genuinely comprehensive attempt to make sure that all of our housing stock is retrofitted. We know that most of the homes that we will be using in 2050 have been built already, so we need a comprehensive way to get carbon emissions from our residential housing sector way down if we are to meet our 80% overall reduction targets.
Chris Huhne
Before I give way, let me make a couple of points about the economic significance of that approach. First, the potential increase in demand as a result of the creation of new industry will be absolutely enormous if we can get the Bill, the framework and the pay-as-you-save measures right. By way of indication, we would be talking, in practical terms, of 14 million homes that could be insulated with the support of the green deal. Purely arithmetically, if the average cost were £6,500, for example, we would be talking about a market worth literally tens of billions of pounds—£90 billion over a substantial period.
We are talking about creating a new industry that would be genuinely jobs-rich, as it would use skills already present in the construction sector and need unskilled labour as well.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He envisages that his green deal will involve insulating and raising the energy rating of 14 million homes in the UK. The previous low-carbon transition plan envisaged that that would be done through the provision of subsidised loft, cavity-wall and other forms of insulation. Has he succeeded in defending the money set aside in his Department for subsidising that, or will he rely on Tesco to do the job instead?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am happy to take part in what is clearly an important debate, in which we are invoking the spirits of forebears of mine, of ours, whom I pray in aid as part of the traditions to which I belong. Lloyd George, Keynes and Beveridge are indeed part of the family of progressive liberals, of whom I regard myself as a modest inheritor.
The most important thing that was announced in the area of energy and climate change and environmental policy, the specific theme of today’s debate, was the green investment bank. It had been a Labour party commitment, and the Conservative party and Liberal Democrats were clear that it should be invented, created and got up and running. It is absolutely central to this Parliament’s strategy that we set up that bank in the near future. It must not be a modest little invention hidden away in a corner; it must be a central part of the new stage of the British economy and it must draw on money from the private sector, which will be used for projects that would not otherwise be funded. But it must also help us to invest in the new generation of green jobs that will make us again the country that can export our manufacturing abilities and the success of the world. For the last 25 years, we have slipped back in manufacturing and exports in these areas and have relied too much on the City, on finance and on banking. That is not enough to sustain a modern economy, and it is not enough to change the environmental way in which we do our business and honour our international obligations.
The second specific area that was much discussed when I shadowed the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and my neighbour the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) was how to ensure that households and individuals play their part. The Labour party started that process and I pay credit to the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend for beginning to ensure that we make households energy efficient, reduce bills, insulate homes properly, protect the vulnerable, and so on. But the scheme was never big enough; it was always a set of schemes that were confusing and lacking in coherence. The phrase “Green Deal” comes from the Conservative manifesto, but the idea comes from both manifestos. That we have a green deal for households must also be a central part of the Government’s strategy. We need to ensure that the new housing that is built and the housing that needs to be renovated and improved give us the safe, warm and pleasant housing that we need. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows as well as anybody else, because he was the architect of the policy in our party a mere three years ago for a carbon neutral Britain, that the crucial area here is to ensure that the poor and the vulnerable are protected first, and that the people who spend a huge amount of their money on fuel when they cannot afford it are given the help that they need. One of the criticisms that I must repeat of the Labour Government, which I made when they were in office, is that when it came to helping the fuel poor—those who pay more than 10p in the pound of their income on fuel—they sadly failed. They tried, and I do not doubt their integrity in trying, but they failed, and we have to do better than that. We have to ensure that single people on their own, who make up 40% of households, and those with families do not have the ridiculous, out-of-control bills that they had; that we save the fuel and reduce the energy that we need as a country; and that we reduce our climate change liability.
Dr Whitehead
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a programme such as that which he envisages is to have any real traction, there is an absolute imperative to defend and increase the almost £200 million that was set aside for the insulation of hard-to-treat homes and social housing? Will he put that in his book as a red line on Government investment in the energy efficiency uprating of social housing? If that investment does not appear, will he publicly underline his opposition to energy efficiency improvement methods that are not underwritten properly by Government funding?
Simon Hughes
The hon. Gentleman has a good, honourable and knowledgeable track record on the issue, and, as he would expect, in this Parliament I have already met the Housing Minister, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and my friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that those points are made. We are just beginning the debate about where the spending cuts must be made, and a coalition of Members needs to put the case for retaining that expenditure which is necessary to pump-prime, drive and incentivise the housing stock change that we clearly need. The other central point, on which the Government have made a commitment, is to introduce the power of general competence to local councils, so that they have much more flexibility over how they address such issues.
Thirdly, on the green agenda, I note the comments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change made about the carbon price, and we await with interest the publication of the proposals to reform the climate change levy. However, I remind him that we ought to reconsider introducing the emissions performance standard, which both our parties were willing to do. Labour resisted it, but I hope that it gets back on the agenda as a way of ensuring that we make progress not just in our country, but throughout Europe.
Fourthly, and more controversially, there is nuclear power, to which the Budget referred not specifically, but indirectly in relation to Sheffield Forgemasters. I made my position clear about nuclear power before the election, and when the initial announcement was made about the Sheffield Forgemasters loan, and I have always believed that the nuclear industry will not have a viable future unless it receives public subsidy. I have never had a theological opposition to nuclear power. I believed that it was the wrong answer, contributing too little to emissions reduction and to the country’s power needs, but in that context the Sheffield Forgemasters loan was inconsistent with a policy of not subsidising the nuclear power industry.
The announcement is difficult for Sheffield and for south Yorkshire, but we have to have a policy that applies from the beginning to the end, and we have to be tough on that. In reality, other countries such as Germany have now introduced a tax on nuclear power stations to make up for the fact that the industry benefits from a carbon price but does not pay for the clean-up of the legacy nuclear waste. There must be economic realism in the nuclear industry. That has been our position, and it has been accommodated in our parties’ agreement.
There is another matter on which I have lobbied the Government but not yet seen anything emerge, and if it could be dealt with in the ministerial winding-up speech that would be helpful. It is about helping with biodiesel that is made from recycled vegetable oil. I declare two interests: I drive a vehicle that uses it; and there is a firm in my constituency from which I purchase it, and which in turn takes it from firms locally. It is a good and environmental product, but the financial incentives for biofuels do not yet encourage the industry to grow. It is an industry of small businesses, it ought to be incentivised but the Treasury loses out because of the wrong incentives as well as inadequate incentives for the sector. I hope that that issue will be looked at, and that we might introduce an amendment to the Finance Bill in order to pick up on that individual and ring-fenced item.
On the Budget as a whole, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North rightly said that I had always assumed that the more natural coalition, had it been achievable, would have been between the Labour party and ourselves. There is no secret about that, but in the end it proved undeliverable on two counts: first, the numbers did not add up, and this country needed a secure, majority Government; and, secondly, the Labour party was not willing to move on key issues. They included political and electoral reform and a fairer taxation system—in particular, taking people on low incomes out of tax.
The measures that commend the Budget are specifically items that were in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, on which I did fight the election. They include, first, linking pensions with earnings. The link was broken by Mrs Thatcher and never reintroduced by Labour, but its restoration next year was committed to in this Budget. Secondly, there is the measure on taking people who have an income of less than £10,000 out of tax gradually, the first wave of which was introduced in the Budget, and which matters not to the absolutely poorest who have no incomes, but specifically to pensioners and working people who have a small income. Thirdly, there is the measure on increasing capital gains tax, because we believe that it should be set at the same level as income tax. There has been a debate among Government Members on that issue, and there is a difference in view, but there has been a move in that direction, which I applaud and recognise.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I must say that I felt that the previous speech was derived directly from a Conservative central office handout, which was unfortunately handed out before any proper examination of the Budget and its impact on those who benefit from it and those who do not. It is beyond doubt that the Budget is unfair, and harms those least able to defend and help themselves as well as future prospects for the recovery and development of the British economy. I want to consider that in the context of the energy and climate change theme of our debate.
The Secretary of State, in introducing the theme, purported to defend the role of the Budget in the Department’s proper ambitions for a green energy economy and a green recovery in the overall economy, with prospects for green jobs and a change-round so that we produce the goods and services that we need at a fraction of the carbon output. I have great respect for the Secretary of State’s commitment to the environment, climate change and energy matters, so I am sad to say that I was reminded of the well known 18th century ballad, “The Vicar of Bray”, in which the vicar of Bray intoned against popery when it was out of fashion and greatly in its favour when it was again in fashion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s—and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats’—principles on climate change and a low-energy economy are not affected by the expediencies that the Budget outlines.
We must take action to change the way in which our economy works in the next few years. We must keep in place the goals to ensure that we reduce carbon outputs in our economy so that we reach our target by 2050 of no less than an 80% reduction in carbon output in our country and a 50% reduction throughout the world. I hope that the Government do not resile from that target, even though they have taken away targets for waiting lists in hospitals and for house building. If they do not resile from that target, there will still be a number of imperatives—a number of which the Secretary of State outlined—in terms of the investment needed in our economy over the next few years to turn around how much of it works, and in terms of energy supply and a range of other activities.
That is why I thought, among other things, that the recent Forgemasters decision, although not enormous relative to some of those other areas, was nevertheless totemic. It was a decision for apparently short-term and expedient reasons to take away a loan—not a grant—from a company that would have invested in the future of our economy and, in particular, our low-carbon economy. I hope that the decision is not a precursor to other things for our low-carbon economy, because the coalition document sets out a number of ambitions that will work only if the investment, underpinning and Government support for such changes are put in place. They include ambitions on carbon capture and storage, a green investment bank, a floor price for carbon and a new green deal for home energy efficiency, all of which are essential pillars of that new, green, low-carbon economy. However, the prospect of a 25% cut in the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s budget over the next few years suggests, at the very least, that a number of those ambitions will not be supported and funded in the way that will be necessary.
I am concerned that the ambition for a green investment bank might turn out to be no more than a re-badging exercise, unless the Government are prepared to underpin the bank in a way that will secure those investments, which will go into new methods of production and new services that would not otherwise receive support from the traditional banking sector. If the Government have turned their face against loans that produce results far beyond the ambition of this loan, that would suggest that the green investment bank might just be the re-badging exercise that I have described. I would also be concerned if the green investment bank simply sought to replace money that is already in the system—for example, the £400 million for research and development in low-carbon technologies or the £120 million for the promotion and development of offshore wind—with other means, albeit perhaps with inferior outcomes.
As for a floor price for carbon, it is one thing to have an ambition for the future. Setting aside for a moment the fact that we operate in the context of a European Union with a single market and that if our country unilaterally set a floor price for carbon, others might free-ride on it, any floor will have to have intervention to support it if it is breached. Do the Government intend to provide the assistance to ensure that a floor price can be sustained or do they think—as the Budget suggests—that these things can simply be left to the market?
The green deal has been put in place, through the carbon emissions reduction target and the community energy savings programme, while the Great British Refurb is coming up—we hope—in order to ensure that houses across the country have the energy efficiency that they will require to play their part in the new low-carbon economy. Considerable investment will be needed to underwrite efficient home insulation for social housing and homes that are without cavity wall insulation. That will require several million pounds of Government support. All that was in place prior to the general election. Is it the Government’s intention to continue that underwriting or will that be left to the market as well?
A number of important aspects of the development of a low-carbon economy will require that intervention, support and underpinning. I am concerned that, instead of continuing to provide that underpinning, the intention might be to place increasing obligations on energy companies to undertake it instead. There are already obligations on energy companies concerning smart meter introduction, feed-in tariffs and the carbon emissions reduction target and, indeed, carbon capture and storage. As well as hearing about increased obligations on energy companies, we have heard that the introduction of smart meters will be rolled forward by a further three years, which will place a further obligation on energy companies to undertake the financing. Every obligation placed on an energy company increases the fuel price and puts more people in fuel poverty as a result. For every 1% increase in the fuel price, 40,000 people go into fuel poverty.
Is the Budget going to be fair when it increases VAT not necessarily on domestic fuel but on fuel across the board elsewhere, which also indirectly but eventually pushes up fuel prices, leading to more people living in fuel poverty in the future? Will the mechanisms ensure that fairness in fuel access and fuel price becomes a real part of the country’s future energy economy?
The final important totem to watch carefully is whether the renewable heat incentive happens over the next year. Will the Government put in the underwriting to make that renewable heat incentive work? If they are not prepared to do that or to make a number of the other necessary underwritings to take us towards the green economy, they will have aspirations without means and the principles set out today will prove to be nothing more than hollow promises.
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman, if he is not careful, might be projecting the political fate of his own party. With this Budget, we want to ensure above all else that we start addressing our country’s dire financial situation. By the end of this Parliament, we will have started to return to a sustainable set of public finances which puts us in a position to make sure that our debt is more affordable. He might think it acceptable that the average taxpayer pays almost £1,400 in interest to service the debt that his party racked up, but I do not, and over a period of years we want to get into a position where our debt is affordable once again. The process will not be quick; it will take us time, because of the gravity of the situation.
Let us make no mistake: we have no time to wait. Before the election, we had only to look across the water at some of our European partners to see what was happening to their countries. I shall draw an analogy, because in Spain the equivalent of the bank manager—the markets—said that they simply were not willing to lend to that country at the same rate of interest as previously. That debt now costs Spain’s taxpayers millions of pounds more in interest than it did when their credit rating was better. Greece has gone one step further and, effectively, has the bailiffs knocking on the door.
Our Budget was all about ensuring that we do not reach the position where the bank manager says that he is going to raise interest rates on us. We as a nation cannot afford it, and British households cannot afford it. We definitely do not want to reach the stage where we have the bailiffs knocking on the door, which is what has effectively happened in Greece. I am concerned, however, because in spite of everything that has happened in our country, including the election and the state of our public finances, we have still not heard a meaningful debate from the Opposition.
Dr Whitehead
As the subject of today’s debate is supposed to be energy and climate change, I wonder whether the hon. Lady has anything at all to say about the extent to which the Budget might facilitate a recovery towards a low-carbon economy, or whether, as I suspect the case may be, she does not.
Justine Greening
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the chance to finish on that subject, because I wanted to take the time to talk about the environment in the context of the Budget.
We have said that we are determined to make progress on setting up a green investment bank; we have talked about ensuring that the green deal works, because it is critical that our housing stock be made more environmentally friendly; and, of course, the final piece of the Budget was about ensuring that we can move to a low-carbon economy that does not just put our energy strategy on a more sustainable footing, but includes the jobs that can be part of the green enterprise economy that we want to set up.
The hon. Gentleman was right to raise the matter, because too often the issue of climate change and the environment has been exclusive—the idea being, “If you can afford to save the planet, you can do it.” We want to make sure that everybody in our country is able to be part of tackling climate change. That is why the green deal and the green investment bank are so important. The supply side of technologies is critical in ensuring that these markets can get the finance they need. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman—