David Mowat
Main Page: David Mowat (Conservative - Warrington South)
Caroline Flint
We left a legacy that formed a firm foundation for new endeavour. We should have been going up, not down. The sad thing is the other side of this: energy efficiency. I think some 400,000 fewer homes were insulated as a result of the changes the Government made to energy insulation programmes—another missed opportunity. I really hope this new team will grasp it and, when it is in the national interest, work with everybody, including us.
Caroline Flint
I have taken a lot of interventions. I will just get to the end of my speech now, because a lot of colleagues want to speak in this debate.
Progress in energy efficiency is the other area that could stimulate jobs and investment while helping to reduce fuel poverty. I hope that when we come to discuss this matter, perhaps in another debate, the Government will be open to taking about some of Labour’s proposals to deliver energy. I have to say that they were widely welcomed by industry and campaigners fighting fuel poverty.
In the previous Parliament, we wanted the Government to back our target for decarbonising the electricity supply by 2030, because that would have given investors the certainty they need. It was argued then that a decarbonisation target would be set in this Parliament, but the Conservative manifesto ruled that out. We hope to see such a target set in 2016 in line with the fifth carbon budget from the Committee on Climate Change, which will make its recommendations at the end of the year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will happen? Will the Prime Minister’s pledge to be the greenest Government ever be revived in this Parliament?
This is a year with great potential. In 2008, there was consensus across the political parties over the Climate Change Act 2008. The Act sparked investment, created jobs and cut emissions. Before 2010, the Prime Minister promised the greenest Government ever, but by the end of the Parliament the husky was dead and the Prime Minister talked about “cutting the green crap”. [Interruption.] Those were the Prime Minister’s words, not mine. I am just quoting him. We all know the Chancellor could never be described as the greenest Chancellor ever. I hope the Secretary of State, with her all-female House of Commons team, will put the Chancellor and Prime Minister back on track so we can all be proud of what we can achieve in December. I commend the motion to the House.
Amber Rudd
I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of the G7 communiqué. I met with non-governmental organisations and businesses at an event hosted by the Green Alliance on the same day, and they were delighted by the strong signal being sent out by the G7 that getting an answer and following it was a priority this year. The House should be in no doubt that there has been strong leadership from this Government, as there was from the previous Government.
David Mowat
On the point about leadership and the German Chancellor, is my right hon. Friend aware that Germany has commissioned more coal-fired power stations in the past four years than in the previous two decades, that those coal-fired power stations will be totally unabated and that, partly as a consequence, its emissions are now 30% per capita higher than in the UK?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right. I am aware that the German Chancellor has her own political issues to address, but because of that, it was particularly warming—encouraging rather than warming, perhaps—to see her taking such strong leadership on this and making sure it remained at the top of the agenda. Since my hon. Friend mentions coal, I take the opportunity to say how important carbon capture and storage remains to us. I spoke several times in debates in the last Parliament on this subject. The right hon. Member for Don Valley and her team should be in no doubt that we remain committed. We have spent, or put aside, more than £1 billion. We have two tests going ahead, one in Aberdeen and one in Yorkshire, and we are running a competition that we hope to take forward over the next six to nine months. There is a lot of activity going on. The whole purpose is to ensure that we can have a form of unabated coal going forward.
Callum McCaig
That is a disappointing scenario and I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. Onshore wind has the potential to provide a win-win situation for communities to see investment that they might not otherwise have dreamed of—though that might not be the case in Glasgow—as well as a reduction in our carbon emissions.
Scotland is doing well with carbon reduction. Given the nature of our geography and the potential renewable resources in our nation, we are willing, able and well disposed to do a large part of the carbon reduction heavy lifting on behalf of the United Kingdom. However, that can only be done in partnership while the required powers rest in this place. I reiterate the need for that detailed and meaningful consultation with the Scottish Government.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention innovation, which will be required for a number of the renewable technologies that will play their part in meeting our climate change obligations. Offshore wind has the potential to deal with that; specific considerations in Scotland make it slightly more difficult there than in other places, owing to the depth of the water, but the resource there is unparalleled. We need the ability, through the contracts for difference mechanisms, to enable offshore wind in Scotland to take off and take up the heavy lifting on carbon reduction.
Clearly, there is a requirement for base-load, and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention carbon capture and storage. I gently correct her by saying that Peterhead is not Aberdeen—it is a fair while up the road and the differences are stark, both for those resident in Aberdeen and those resident in Peterhead; we are friendly but competitive. CCS, too, has the potential to be transformational in how electricity generation and heat generation can be decarbonated.
Time is clearly of the essence, both in this Chamber and, more pressingly, as the temperatures—
David Mowat
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman mention “base-load” and “heavy lifting”. He will know that the low-carbon technology that does most to reduce emissions in this country is civil nuclear, and the same applies worldwide; we are talking about double the amount of renewables. That is clearly base-load, and civil nuclear is cheaper, even now, than wind, so is it something he advocates in terms of heavy lifting and base-load?
Callum McCaig
It is not something I would advocate in that regard, and I do not believe it is cheaper. The strike price for the new power station at Hinkley is £10 higher per megawatt-hour than the one for onshore wind.
David Mowat
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently misled the House about the strike price for nuclear at Hinkley compared with that for onshore wind. The strike price in legislation for onshore wind is higher than that for nuclear at Hinkley Point C.
Callum McCaig
The figures I have seen are £82.50 as opposed to £92.50, but if I am wrong about that—I will check it—I will be more than happy to withdraw that statement. I do not believe that nuclear is safe or that it is an appropriate part of the energy mix.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I will use the first part of my three minutes to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (James Cleverly) and for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) and my near neighbour the hon. Member for City of Chester (Chris Matheson) on their excellent maiden speeches this afternoon.
We have had Opposition day debates on energy many times over the past five years, and I am delighted to say that this is one of the first motions that I am happy at least not to oppose, even if we are not going to vote for it. Climate change clearly matters to us all, and it is worth reflecting on why the solution is so difficult. Why is the world struggling to keep the increase at 2° C or keep the level of carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million?
It is important to understand the context: the UK is responsible for 1.5% of global emissions. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), in an interesting speech, made the point that the initial submissions for the EU offer on climate change are significantly less onerous than those in our own Climate Change Act 2008. That is something we will have to fix in Paris, because it is not right. Emissions in the UK are, roughly speaking, 30% lower than those in Holland and Germany, and they are among the lowest in the EU. France has very low emissions—even lower than Scotland—because it has civil nuclear power at the heart of its energy production. The issue we have is how to get the rest of Europe and the rest of the world to do anything that comes close to the 2008 Act’s 80% emission target by 2050.
Four things have made that more difficult than it needs to be. First, we have confused renewables with decarbonisation. We have gone after renewables targets when we should have been going after decarbonisation targets. The impact has been that we have not spent enough time on either carbon capture and storage or nuclear power. We also have not spent enough time looking at gas as a very viable alternative to coal. I will mention just one statistic as I wrap up in the last 30 seconds. If the world were able to replace all our coal with gas, that would be equivalent to increasing the amount of renewables we have by a factor of five. Those who oppose fracking need to think about that. This is a very serious issue and it will not be solved by slogans.