Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to help achieve the net zero emissions target by 2050.

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

The hon. Lady will know that the UK’s net zero target is a world-leading initiative. Indeed, it was striking that this month China, Japan and South Korea committed themselves to net-zero carbon targets.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend will know that we are taking considerable action to encourage consumers to buy electric vehicles, and we are also investing in the necessary infrastructure. So far we have invested £30 million to support vehicle-to-grid technology, and we will regulate next year to ensure that consumers benefit from smart-charging their electric vehicles.

[Alexander Stafford]

Recent commentary has highlighted the role of the North sea as a strategic asset for net zero. It could deliver one third of our energy needs via offshore wind, which could increase the utilisation of carbon capture and storage and green hydrogen. What is the role of a carbon pricing mechanism in delivering this?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend, as he often does, raises a pertinent question relating to our energy strategy. Obviously, carbon pricing is at the centre of any move to try to decarbonise our energy mix. We have a track record on this, and we have also committed to 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030, which, through the auction process, is critical to delivering our net zero ambitions.

Alternative Fuelled Vehicles: Energy Provision

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for introducing the debate.

Members may or may not know that until December last year I worked on exactly the subject of the debate, for Shell oil, looking at the future of fuel and of transport. One thing that is clear from all the work that has been done is that there is no one future—no one size fits all. We have heard great advocates for electric and for hydrogen, although we have yet to hear anyone talking about biofuels. I am trying to say that there is no one solution. There may be someone here with an electric car, and someone with a hydrogen car, but we must look at the issue in the round. It is important that we, and the Government, consider all options. There is no single track that leads forward in the right direction. We need to look at everything.

My concern about the debate generally is that there is a lot of talk about electric. I agree that the future for most passenger vehicles will be electric; that is undeniable. However, I also care about UK plc and our economy, and I fear that if we—the Government and the nation—put all our eggs in the electric basket, we will miss the boat. Germany, China and even south America are doing so much great work with battery technology. Can this country get the financial dividends from investing heavily in electric? I say, “Not necessarily.” We need to invest in it for the good of the climate and the country, but for the good of the economy I argue that we need to try to steal a march on areas of transport that have not yet fully taken off. Hydrogen is incredibly important for heavier vehicles—HGVs, trains, planes and boats, which cannot electrify. We have to stop kidding ourselves. For large chunks of the sector, electricity is not the answer. Heavy haulage will not be electrified. We cannot talk about that; we have to be realistic.

Aviation is also relevant. When coronavirus is over, people will go back to flying. Batteries are not going to be the answer for planes—not for 50, 60 or 70 years. We need to look at alternatives—hydrogen—but also at sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels. We need to look at the whole thing in the round. Once again, not that much work has been done internationally on sustainable aviation fuels, so the Government need to look at those options. If we get the formula right, whether for aviation fuels or hydrogen, we can develop those things in this country—in my constituency, I hope—and export that technology and those fuel supplies to the wider world. Not only can we then get to a low-carbon future, which we all want, but we can make money for the country, and financial dividends.

We have only a short window in which to do that—I would say five to 10 years—before other countries steal a march on us; but if we invest heavily in those new technologies, while also using electric vehicles, we can bolster our economy. I want to use this opportunity to implore the Government to look at the whole range of options. Do not just go down the electrification route, which is important for passengers and consumers, but look at the technologies that we can develop as British technology—good Sheffield and south Yorkshire technology —and export across the world once again. This can be the industrial revolution of the next 150 years.

Fracking: Rother Valley

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a great honour to secure this debate and speak on a matter of such huge importance to the people of Rother Valley. Needless to say, I am resolutely and absolutely opposed to fracking in any form, as are my constituents. My professional background consists of working for the WWF and Shell on environmental issues among others, so I know only too well how harmful fracking can be to local communities. Many hon. Members representing constituencies up and down the country will share my views, and I welcome their support.

Before I go any further, I wish to thank a number of constituents and local groups for their constant enthusiasm and support in protecting Rother Valley from the disaster of fracking. Les and Wendy Barlow and Harthill Against Fracking have been absolute stalwarts in protecting our area, as have Richard Scholey and the Woodsetts Against Fracking group. Helen Wilks, a local farmer, has contributed much in the way of her experiences of fracking’s impact on her livelihood, on traffic and congestion and on farmers’ mental health.

For those who do not know—I am sure that we all do in this House—fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth and injecting the rock with a high-pressure water, sand and chemical mix to release the gas inside. While it was hailed in the United States as the answer to their domestic energy supply shortage, the United Kingdom was late to the party. Thank goodness we were, for we have seen the harmful effects of fracking elsewhere and we are rightfully horrified. We have had the advantage of seeing the dangers from across the pond, and we need to avoid repeating the same mistakes by opposing this backward-looking technology.

Why is fracking so bad for Rother Valley and constituencies like it? The reasons are plentiful. There are, of course, the safety arguments pertaining to contamination of local aquifers by chemicals that escape in the drilling process. Who should monitor the sites? The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive do not have the capacity to watch over every fracking site in the country, and few of us would trust the fracking companies to self-regulate and report any breaches. That is surely not acceptable to anyone.

The idea that such companies may poison the water sources of my communities is terrifying and not a risk that the Government are willing to take. Equally petrifying are the seismic activity concerns caused by fracking. Professor Peter Styles, a geophysics expert, presented a report in the other place on the difficulties in carrying out fracking beneath previously mined areas and his findings were compelling. He pointed out that even small faults have the potential to cause small earthquakes that would trigger the seismic traffic light system threshold and therefore halt fracking.

In Rother Valley, Harthill and Woodsetts are on top of areas of historical coalmining. They are riddled with old mine workings and fault lines already severely weakened by coal extraction, right beneath where the companies intend to frack. I do not think I need to stress to hon. Members how dangerous fracking in this area would be, and how such risks simply cannot ever be taken. As if contaminated water sources and earthquakes were not enough, fracking negatively affects Rother Valley in other ways, too. Fracking is a colossal imposition on people’s lives, many of whom are elderly or vulnerable. For instance, one of the proposed fracking sites in Rother Valley is very close to a residential home, causing much distress to its residents due to the noise and pollution potential.

Fracking sites are hives of industrial activity and, as such, the traffic movement associated with fracking will peak at up to 60 HGV movements per day. This is unthinkable on narrow track lanes around Harthill and Woodsetts, which are frequented by dog walkers, ramblers, horse riders and cyclists. In some parts of the lanes they are approximately only 3 metres wide. These rural lanes simply will not be able to cope with the vastly increased traffic demand. Proposals include widening roads and cutting down hedgerows for these juggernauts to pass through, which will destroy local flora and fauna. It is clearly unacceptable that my constituents’ use of local roads would be usurped by large corporate fracking companies.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this really important debate to the House. Fracking itself holds no benefits for places of beauty such as North Yorkshire. I wholeheartedly agree with all that he says. Does he not also agree that the vast amount of traffic movement that is needed to build the networks across the constituency to transport water to and from the sites is a complete waste and really does tear up our environment?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. I completely agree with her about these traffic movements. It is the effect of fracking as a whole and all the issues around fracking that have a huge impact. In Rother Valley, for instance, the residents fear that the local authority would have to impose strict traffic controls on local people to minimise congestion and to mitigate risks to public safety. They are losing out once again.

It is expected that it is the responsibility of the operator to pay for the decommissioning of a fracking site at the end of its life cycle. However, in March 2019 the Public Accounts Committee highlighted substantial fears that the taxpayer will be left to foot the bill for clean-up costs if the operator goes out of business. That is clearly an objectionable state of affairs given the wealth of the fracking companies. Furthermore, my constituents have worked hard all their lives to buy their homes, only for fracking to decimate the price of houses in the vicinity. Even laying the value of the houses aside, it does have to be asked: who wants to live next to an industrial site? That is particularly true in the case of Woodsetts and Harthill, to where many residents have moved because they want to live in a rural, idyllic location.

There is no doubt that this fight against fracking has exacted a heavy toll on my constituents’ mental health. They are faced not only with the prospect of losing access to the country lanes around the proposed fracking sites, which are used for exercise to ensure healthy body and mind, but with continuous uncertainty. One of my constituents has described this as “the great sword of Ineos” hanging over their heads—and he is absolutely right. Even though the Government have issued a moratorium on fracking, this has not stopped Ineos from circling around the sites in Harthill and Woodsetts like vultures, biding its time and waiting for the moratorium to be eased.

Exploratory drilling and acidisation are still not covered by the moratorium and we fear that fracking companies seek to exploit that. The ban needs to cover exploratory drilling and acidisation. We all know that Ineos is willing to outspend local community groups many hundreds of times over on legal fees and feasibility reports. This unjust situation is akin to David versus Goliath. The status quo is not acceptable. If we are headed towards a low carbon future, on which we all agree in this House, surely a permanent ban on fracking would send a clear and strong message to the world of the UK’s commitment?

Time is of the essence for the people of Harthill and Woodsetts: no longer can we wait nervously for the threat of fracking to pass. I speak directly to Ineos when I say, “You will never be allowed to frack in Rother Valley. Your best endeavours will come to nothing. Leave my constituents in peace to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Do not come back.”

I speak to Rotherham Council directly when I say, “This Government have been unequivocal in their opposition to fracking.” The then Communities Secretary declared in a statement in May 2019 that paragraph 209(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework, which concerned the benefits of shale gas, had now been quashed and was therefore no longer relevant for planning purposes.

I say to Rotherham council: “Stop wasting taxpayers’ money and your time and resources conducting traffic management plans and surveys on proposed fracking areas. There is no prospect of fracking taking place in Rother Valley, so you must now move on and focus your efforts on providing vital services for residents.” Many of my constituents feel that the Labour-run council is not listening to what the Government are saying on key issues such as fracking in our areas, so I say to Rotherham council, “Keep fighting the frackers! Do not support them by granting permissions of any sort.”

From a national perspective, fracking has no future in the United Kingdom. Prices for fossil fuels such as oil have completely collapsed, the Prime Minister has announced a green energy revolution, and around the globe there is consensus that renewables are the way forward. Even the Communist People’s Republic of China has committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. We have our own net zero target of 2050 to meet, and we are hosting COP26 in Glasgow next year. Why on earth would we give the go-ahead to a fossil fuel industry practice that contributes to climate change and has no longevity?

Fracking is the technology of the past and is a retrograde step. We must not waste any more time looking back; instead, we must look to the future. Last week was Climate Week, which presents us with an opportunity to look ahead. Hon. Members will know that I have campaigned stridently in this House for the UK’s green recovery and I am particularly enthused by hydrogen as the fuel of the future, which will power our cars, buses and homes. I am supporting the opening of a hydrogen electrolyser factory on the border of Rother Valley and urging the Government to adopt a bold hydrogen strategy. I am also engaging to push the Government to issue green bonds and to set up a green development bank, in a bid to make Britain the biggest green economy on earth.

I have always said that UK plc must steal a march on our competitors by exporting our green technology and knowledge to the rest of the world. By leading the green revolution, we shall create jobs, turbocharge business and rejuvenate our left-behind communities. We must act decisively or risk losing out. I envision this new industry being centred in Rother Valley. I want, for example, renewables plants in Dinnington and Maltby and specialist training colleges in Thurcroft and Aston. I want hydrogen factories in Orgreave and distribution networks in Hellaby.

The possibilities are endless, and my ambition for Rother Valley is limitless too. Our area has the industrial heritage, the expertise and the desire; we just need to be given a chance. We should not be focusing on yesterday’s technologies such as fracking. How poetic would it be if Rother Valley were to transform from a centre of dirty fossil fuels to a hub of green renewable energy? That is the future I want for my constituency and the people who live there, and I am sure this Government will provide it.

As I draw to a close, I thank the House for its support and praise my wonderful constituents in Rother Valley for their tireless activism on the issue of fracking. I trust we have made it clear today that fracking has no future in Rother Valley or in the United Kingdom, and I look forward to leading the charge as Britain embarks on its green recovery and green economic revolution.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With the agreement of Mr Stafford, the responding Minister and myself, I call Lee Rowley.

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Departmental Spending

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is at the heart of our post-covid recovery. In my speech, I wish to focus on the repatriation of jobs to Britain, boosting our home-grown manufacturing, capitalising on our region’s rich industrial heritage and levelling up across our great country. Those are urgent priorities, which are integral to BEIS’s efforts to relaunch UK plc post covid and, in doing so, ensure the public are guaranteed the best return for the money that is entrusted to us.

Too many jobs have left Britain in the past decade or so, lured away by cheap labour and loose employment protection laws. Companies have left in their droves, while still benefiting from our consumer market. Germany, a country with a similar sized population and economy, has protected its industries and largely succeeded in encouraging German companies to retain their operations at home. It is our job to make the case for the UK as a hub of innovation with a highly educated, highly skilled and highly creative workforce. Companies that have moved jobs abroad have found that the grass is not always greener. In an increasingly complex global climate characterised by the slowdown of China and its tension with the west, and Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, there is inherent value to business in the stability of our governance and the quality of our British labour market.

We must focus not on repatriating jobs to Britain, but on nourishing and supporting the enterprises that are here. This House knows only too well that many businesses are struggling to survive during the crisis and face many tough months ahead. Accordingly, I welcome the proposal to increase BEIS funding by £12 billion.

For us to emerge from the crisis, we must draw on the industry and ingenuity for which this country is famous. BEIS must support a renaissance in home-grown manufacturing, while promoting the UK as a world leader in certain fields. We have already achieved that in medical research and pharmaceuticals, and there is no reason why we cannot apply that success to sectors such as green energy and renewables, and in doing so steal a march on our rivals. We are already ahead of the game in technologies such as wind power, but we must act with speed and commitment to implement a hydrogen strategy to harness the full potential of this exciting zero-emission fuel of the future. Much of my work on the BEIS Committee revolves around such issues, and I welcome ideas from other Members to make them a reality.

I envision this industrial renaissance being spread out across a chain of innovative manufacturing hubs all across the UK. The Government’s levelling-up agenda is key to a strong economic recovery that works for every Briton and for every part of this nation. I speak from experience: my constituency of Rother Valley in South Yorkshire has a rich industrial heritage from many generations of coal mining and steel production, which is mirrored in constituencies across the north of England, the midlands and other parts of the United Kingdom. Such areas have been neglected and unemployment has soared. Now is the time for BEIS to utilise the manufacturing knowledge and skills possessed by locals in these areas and repurpose it for the industries of the future. This transformative action would provide high-quality jobs to those left-behind areas while firmly positioning the UK as a world leader in new sectors. We would reduce our reliance on overseas actors and be able to use British goods for British infrastructure projects.

As I draw my speech to a close, I underline the incredible opportunity that BEIS has to bring back jobs to Britain, restore struggling business to full health and open a new frontier for British manufacturing and industry. By reinventing areas with an industrial legacy and including them in our plans, we will not only recover from this dreadful virus, but usher in a new industrial revolution and a whole new era for a global Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)]

My Department, together with Her Majesty’s Treasury, is at the forefront of supporting businesses during these unprecedented times. More than £10.3 billion has been paid out to businesses to date by direct grant and an additional £38.2 billion through the major loan schemes. The Government have supported 9.1 million jobs through the coronavirus job retention scheme and 2.6 million claims have been made through the self-employed income support scheme.

In the past week, I have led five businesses taskforces to listen to and work with the business community and academic experts as we consider the measures needed to support our economy bouncing back. We want to create a cleaner, greener and more resilient economy and the output from those taskforces will feed directly into the Government’s work on the economic recovery.

[Alexander Stafford]

The Secretary of State will know that the UK has an opportunity to lead the world in hydrogen technology, which will create thousands of green jobs, cut emissions, unlock private investment and increase our energy security. Just as we lagged behind with battery technology, we risk missing the boat on hydrogen as other nations set multibillion-pound hydrogen strategies. The UK needs a hydrogen strategy. Will the Secretary of State meet me and other colleagues from across the House who share my belief in hydrogen to discuss how we can place hydrogen at the forefront of our green recovery?

[Alok Sharma]

As my hon. Friend will have heard in the earlier answer from the Energy Minister, we are committed to developing hydrogen as a strategic decarbonised energy carrier. We are investing in the value chain and both the Energy Minister and I will be happy to meet him.

British Steel Industry

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the steel industry goes wider than just steel manufacturers? For instance, last Friday I visited Lincoln Electric, a high-quality welding company that specialises in welding together all sorts of things, including steel plates. We need those auxiliary industries, which benefit the steel industry, to support more to happen in our country.

[Marion Fellows]

I really did not think I would be in such agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but I am pleased to say that on this topic, I am.

After a study into the industry, the UK Government encouraged the steel industry, as part of a planned industrial strategy, to come forward with a proposal for a sector deal, and it did. The industry made serious commitments on its side and asked for a list of commitments from the UK Government, which they have refused to sign up to—in particular, to decreasing energy costs for the steel industry. The industry sees that as vital if it is to compete with steel producers on the continent. The £50 million per annum electricity price disparity that the sector asked the UK Government to eliminate in autumn 2017 is now about £70 million per annum.

Even leading Tories say that the UK Government are a problem for the UK steel industry. The Tory Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, was quoted in The Spectator only this month as saying:

“The biggest problem with the steel industry in the UK is Whitehall…The UK steel policy and the BEIS team are absolutely useless.”

No one from the Opposition has actually said that, but this is what he says:

“It has become a sticking plaster. Oh, British Steel’s fallen over, how do we rescue it? Oh, now south Wales is in trouble, how do we rescue it?”

He says there is too much worrying about failure and not enough planning for success:

“It’s never: what do we want the steel industry to look like? What can we do as a developed nation when we’re having to compete with places like China?”

I have agreed with two Tories in one speech. This is something of a record, Sir Charles.

[Alexander Stafford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Marion Fellows]

No, I would like to carry on—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I have already given way, and I would like to make a few points before I give way again.

We have provided more than £300 million to the steel sector since 2013. We have tried to make energy costs more competitive in the sector. We are acutely conscious that steel manufacturers in Europe have slightly lower—in some cases, considerably lower—electricity costs, but then again, the other side of that coin is that consumers in those countries have much higher electricity costs than consumers in this country. There is a debate to be had about how that pricing structure should work.

Looking forward, we have announced the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund, which will give steel manufacturers finance towards using clean energy in their manufacturing processes. We also have a £250 million clean steel fund, which is also supporting the sector’s transition from fossil fuel-burning dirty energy to low-carbon technologies. These initiatives and funds have all been announced and funded in the past few years. We continue to support the steel industry, and we engage with it through the Steel Council set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) when he was Business Secretary, so it is not true to say that the Government are doing nothing, or that we do not regularly engage with the industry.

[Alexander Stafford]

High-end steel engineering at Kiveton Park Steel in Rother Valley produces steel for aircraft, industry and precision engineering requirements, and is exported widely to Brazil, Mexico, India and China. How can we ensure that our trading relationships are enhanced by the benefit of British manufacturing and British steel products?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Exports are at the centre of our industrial base, which is one reason why we support the industry in the way I described. I mentioned the funds and actual policy engagement; we see leaders in the steel sector often. I am pleased that my hon. Friend raisd this issue; it makes a change from fracking, which he often raises with me. However, this is of fundamental importance not only to our industrial strategy but for jobs. I have been struck and impressed by the human stories and the passion with which many MPs here have fought for their industry, their constituents and for the country as well, because we recognise that steel is an absolutely strategic sector.

On prices and the business environment, business rates come up as an challenge that steel companies have to deal with, but they are not alone; across our economy, business rates are often raised. In that vein, the Treasury is committed to reviewing business rates—we hear what people are saying. We want to see what mitigations we can introduce to make the business environment even more benign, to allow companies to thrive.

One extraordinary moment in this debate was the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw quoting Ben Houchen’s writing in The Spectator. That was quite an interesting development. I speak to Ben Houchen, the Mayor of Tees Valley, regularly. He knows that he has many friends and associates within BEIS who are always willing to listen to him on these issues, as they relate not only to the Tees Valley but to the wider steel sector and our industrial base generally. I am proud of engaging with him on this, and I am sure that he understands and recognises that we support the sector and that we are thoroughly and absolutely committed to the steel industry in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) mentioned exports. My Department works constantly with the Department for International Trade to ensure that the UK has a suitable trade regime. Naturally, we have not concluded a free trade agreement with the United States as of today, but when we are in the process of doing so, the potential and real damage inflicted on our workers by steel tariffs will be a subject of debate. I am sure that everything will be dealt with in that round of conversation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I agree that one of the best ways of preparing for COP26 is bringing forward the new contracts for difference auctions for onshore wind and solar, which will help us to achieve net zero. Could we also take this opportunity to demonstrate to the hard-working taxpayers of Rother Valley and across the country that we can reduce their bills by going green. Can we make it a key part of COP26 to show that going green is better value for those hard-working people?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Offshore wind prices have dropped by over two thirds between 2015 and 2019 because of the CfD auctions. Going green is positive for the economy: GDP has grown by 75% since 1990, yet we have also managed to reduce emissions by 43%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Obviously, I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. I was more troubled to see that his leadership campaign was perhaps not launched with the sufficient energy and enthusiasm he shows so often at the Dispatch Box. On building alliances, the Government’s position is that we are always open to building alliances internationally. We are taking leadership with the COP26 conference. On the climate change agenda, we are taking coal off the grid. We are always open to building alliances internationally.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

22. Will my right hon. Friend agree with the residents of Woodsetts and Harthill in Rother Valley that the best way his Department can tackle climate change is to make the moratorium on fracking permanent?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Absolutely. I welcome my hon. Friend to his place—another very successful campaign. On fracking, the moratorium is what it says: we are stopping it. The only way it can be resumed is by compelling evidence, which so far is not forthcoming. So the moratorium stays and fracking, for the time being, is over.