Darren Jones
Main Page: Darren Jones (Labour - Bristol North West)Department Debates - View all Darren Jones's debates with the HM Treasury
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberThe Prime Minister’s plan for change sets out our ambitious but achievable target for clean power by 2030. We have already announced £300 million for offshore wind supply chains, in addition to the significant uplift for the clean industry bonus scheme. These measures support clean energy and growth in the UK’s industrial heartlands, and further details will be set out at the spending review.
Successive Governments have failed to deliver a fair energy transition for workers and communities. We have seen the devastating closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery, and now we are seeing uncertainty around the gas storage facility off the east coast. Just seven out of 87 offshore oil and gas companies are planning to invest anything in renewable energy by 2030, so the Government must be the ones in the driving seat to ensure that our North sea oil and gas workers do not meet the same fate. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on new financial support to create recruitment and retention pathways for workers moving into the clean energy pathway?
Our skilled workforce in the oil and gas industry will be important for the continued role of oil and gas in the energy mix, but also for the transition to renewable and net zero energy, as the hon. Lady has pointed out. That is why we have invested significant sums of money in carbon capture and storage, working with exactly those companies, and we will set out details of further support for the industry at the spending review in the coming months.
I welcome the £200 million commitment to Grangemouth and clean energy through the national wealth fund, and I also welcome the Department’s confirmation to me recently that that money will not be fettered exclusively to the Project Willow proposals. The need for investment is urgent, with jobs lost and the broader economic impacts impending. We need to move further and faster, so what conversations are Treasury Ministers having with their Cabinet colleagues to encourage them to act on the Project Willow policy recommendations and deliver investment in Grangemouth?
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a champion for his constituency and for industry. As he has alluded to, the Government have already made hundreds of millions of pounds available through the national wealth fund for the company in question. We are working to ensure a just transition, harbouring the skills of people in Scotland and across the country. We are now in active discussions as the spending review comes to an end, and we will be able to present more detail to the House on 11 June.
The Climate Change Committee says that we will need oil and gas until at least 2050, but rather than maximise North sea production, the Government are taxing it out of existence. Harbour Energy has just announced hundreds of job losses as a result of the Chancellor’s 78% windfall tax. Instead of costly transition imports, will Ministers use the spending review to think again and focus on an energy policy that will deliver cheaper and cleaner energy that is affordable for consumers and businesses?
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement. That is why we are investing in home-grown secure energy, including renewables, nuclear and other forms of energy. In yesterday’s UK-EU trade deal—which I am sure the shadow Minister would like to welcome—we have enhanced our arrangements with the European Union on electricity trading, enabling us to export energy we produce in the UK to the European Union and vice versa. That will ensure energy security, as well as good jobs and good businesses in the energy sector, for decades to come.
The Treasury has reformed the spending review process to ensure that it facilitates genuine collaboration across Departments. As part of this spending review, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have met Secretaries of State multilaterally in mission clusters, which have brought together Departments to agree cross-departmental priorities, increase transparency, reduce duplication and align spending with mission delivery across Whitehall, while learning every possible lesson from the failure of the Conservatives to ensure that it is never repeated ever again.
Some 9,000 UK medical graduates compete with 15,000 overseas graduates for postgraduate training, meaning that many of our own graduates simply cannot progress into higher professional training, and either go abroad themselves or leave medicine. Does the Minister agree that the Treasury has a crucial role to co-ordinate spending on medical university education by the Department for Education and on postgraduate training by the Department of Health and Social Care, so as to ensure that public money spent on medical student education is not wasted?
The Government are committed to training the staff the NHS needs as part of our 10-year plan. International staff clearly play an important role in the mix of staff that we have, but we also want to create opportunities for people across the country to work in our national health service. That is why, thanks to changes this Government have made, we have already been able to recruit more than 1,500 additional GPs since October who would otherwise not have been able to seek that type of employment.
While discussing the spending review, will the Treasury get the Agriculture Secretary and the Energy Secretary together in the same room, and make sure that agriculture receives the funding it needs and that energy is not allowed to charge agriculture, effectively, for its loss of income? In other words, will the Chancellor ensure we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul?
A meeting of that nature has already taken place as part of our mission-led approach to Government. We continue to engage with the Departments for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on these issues, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests—it is exactly what we mean when we talk about cross-departmental collaboration. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, further details will be set out in the spending review in due course.
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the official opening of the Charles Hammond berth. As she knows, we set up Great British Energy in Scotland, bringing forward £300 million of investment ahead of the spending review to secure jobs and supply chains. Funding for the Port of Cromarty Firth, announced in March, is expected to support up to 1,000 highly skilled jobs, while our uplift to the clean energy bonus will support offshore wind supply chains across the country. That is yet another example of the Government working with business and of a Labour Government delivering for the people of Scotland.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to increasing spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP, with an ambition to go further to 3% in the next Parliament when economic and fiscal conditions allow. As part of that increase in spending, we are making sure that UK companies and UK workers get the benefit, including in places such as Wolverhampton, through apprenticeships, good jobs and good growth.
Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has suffered a real-terms funding cut, partly because the majority of firefighters are on call so the employer national insurance contributions were not sufficiently compensated. Will Ministers commit to reviewing the funding formula to fit the needs of communities, and to undertaking a local impact assessment on the effect of the funding cuts on public and firefighter safety?
The Government have already increased NHS spending by £22.6 billion, police funding by £1.1 billion, and fire and rescue authority funding by £65.5 million. Further spending will be set out in the June spending review, but this is another example of a Labour Government delivering on the promise of change.
To alleviate grinding penury for millions of people, the Chancellor could introduce an annual wealth tax on multimillionaires, which would raise approximately £24 billion per annum, yet she refuses to entertain the idea and considers cuts to welfare acceptable. Why do “tough political choices” always seem to impact the most vulnerable?