Carbon Price Support (Land Reclamation)
Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Matt HancockWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Hancock
I am glad my hon. Friend said that, because I was just about to come on to that issue. Carbon taxes bear down on carbon-producing industries, and that has an impact on coal, which is at the core of today’s debate. The carbon price floor policy sets out the future cost and the trajectory to 2030. We have brought that trajectory down in recognition of the impact on carbon-intensive industries. The carbon price floor is designed to drive the uptake of low-carbon investment.
The question of whether we should look for an exemption is at the core of the debate on the future. There are a number of different issues, including the question of whether using a tax offset to deal with what is essentially a problem of spending is the best solution. I am happy to meet with the hon. Lady, Treasury colleagues and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), whom I spoke to this morning about this issue, in which he takes a close interest. There is also the vital question of value for taxpayers’ money. We are living in times when taxpayers’ money is scarce and there is not much money around.
Cathy Jamieson
I am listening closely to what the Minister is saying. If he thinks that a tax offset is not the correct solution, will he commit to exploring other solutions with Treasury colleagues, given that our constituents are left with these massive holes in the ground?
Matthew Hancock
I am not ruling out a solution through tax; I am merely saying that there are several ways to tackle this problem. We should work in partnership with the Scottish Government in dealing with it, because the question of where liabilities fall is complex. We should also work in partnership with the local authorities involved, which have already put a huge effort into trying to resolve the situation. I propose that we work with the Scottish Government, local authorities, the Scotland Office and the Treasury. I am happy to set up that meeting with the Members here today to see whether we can find a policy solution that works and is technically feasible, whereby the financial issues can be resolved while being consistent with the need for value for money in public spending. Our estimate is that the tax proposal put forward by Hargreaves would cost the Exchequer a minimum of £200 million. Obviously, we would need to be convinced that it is the most effective way to address the issue.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Matt Hancock(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Matthew Hancock
We are absolutely clear about the policy: Scotland will be responsible for onshore oil and gas exploration. That will include not only planning, as is the case now and which is an effective veto, but the positive aspects of licensing. It is a matter for the Scottish Government now, and in the future it will be unambiguously a matter for the Scottish Government. We are carefully considering whether that is done through the Infrastructure Bill or through a future Scotland Bill, but we can put beyond any doubt the clear commitment of the two Front Benches of the major parties in the UK that the onshore exploration of oil and gas is a matter for the Scottish Government in Scotland.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What recent assessment he has made of trends in levels of investment in clean energy.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Matthew Hancock)
Since 2010, an average of £7 billion a year has been invested each year in renewable electricity production, double the £3 billion a year in the previous Parliament.
Cathy Jamieson
In recent months, the UK has slipped to seventh place in the EY attractiveness index for investment in renewables. EY labelled the Government’s actions as
“policy tinkering and conflicting signals”
and
“too much for investors to handle.”
Does the Minister recognise that mixed messages are coming from his Government and that that is a major reason for his failure on investment?
Matthew Hancock
I do not think that the hon. Lady listened to my answer. The amount of investment in renewables is more than double that in the previous Parliament, so it is difficult to answer the rest of the question when it is based on a complete misconception of the facts. We have a clear policy to tackle carbon emissions and ensure that we meet the UK’s international obligations on carbon alongside the lowest possible reasonable cost to consumers and ensuring the security of energy supplies. In the past year, 15% of our electricity has come from renewable sources, double the amount under the previous Government. We are making progress, but we must do it in a way that keeps costs down.
Finance (No. 4) Bill
Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Matt Hancock(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cathy Jamieson
The interests of fish and chip shops have been raised on a number of occasions in this debate, and I am sure that plenty of people will want to patronise those local establishments. However, that does not get us away from the fact that the introduction of this measure has been an absolute shambles.
Matthew Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to the shadow Chancellor for encouraging her to give way. I have a simple question: is Labour going to reintroduce this anomaly, should it ever win an election?