Energy Bill [Lords]
Debate between David Mowat and Graham Stuart(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and other colleagues who have spoken today. I do not think any more memorable phrase will come into the debate than the “50 shades of green” used by my right hon. Friend. As so often in this area of debate, people dispute the numbers, as he did with his initial “ 40 shades” effort.
The thread of agreement among everyone who has spoken so far, including my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), my right hon. Friend and others, is that if we are setting out to fulfil the requirements of the Climate Change Act, we must do so in the lowest-cost way. My right hon. Friend was right to point out that, given the burden sharing throughout Europe, there is an issue about our taking further steps. Would that simply provide greater slack elsewhere? People may or may not share his scepticism about the whole arena, but none of us would want our making progress to mean that someone else slacks as a result. Therefore, having a joined-up approach is a sensible part of delivering what we all want and doing so at the lowest possible cost, and that is worthy of further investigation.
Where I do not think my right hon. Friend is right is in suggesting that this is purely an exercise in sadomasochism. After all, the Committee on Climate Change’s brief is to fulfil that which was passed in this House, albeit without his support: an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. If we read the Committee’s fifth carbon report, which was recently published, we see that its whole premise is to try to work out a pathway to get us there at the lowest possible cost. That is one reason why I welcome the reset of the policy by the new Government and our new Ministers. They are not stepping away from the Climate Change Act, although some of my hon. Friends might wish that they were. On the contrary, they are saying that they want to look at how best to make sure we have a policy framework that incentivises activity to meet the outcomes that we all want.
I know from discussions with the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is nodding in my direction, that one renewables issue we face—this picks up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty—is dealing with intermittency. One way of dealing with that is to develop storage. Have we had sufficient investment and created a framework that has incentivised enough focus on storage while we were also incentivising investment in things such as wind? The answer has to be no. We must therefore try to ensure that we get a framework that captures all the elements that we need in order to create a rational response, so that even if my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden does not entirely agree, he can see a more rational thread running through the policy in order that we can deliver.
The Secretary of State played a leading role in the negotiations in Paris, and Britain was at the table, helping to create a more ambitious deal.
David Mowat
My hon. Friend mentions Paris. I wish to understand, perhaps from the perspective of GLOBE—the Global Legislators Organisation—why the EU’s intended nationally determined contribution submitted at Paris implied a degree of reduction in emissions that is half the rate of the UK’s. Why has the EU decided not to follow us with the Climate Change Act, and apparently to be so tight around it? Does it know something that we do not?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend often carries around with him the list of the emissions reductions of European countries since 1990. He points out—
Graham Stuart
Indeed, Austria is my hon. Friend’s favourite bête noire. He points out that the contribution of many countries that like to talk about this topic but not deliver on it is pretty woeful, which goes back to my earlier point about the need for a joined-up approach to ensure that we genuinely deliver collectively the outcomes that we desire. Thanks in part to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, EU ambitions were raised, but they did not go as far as the UK would have liked. In 2008, with cross-party support, we unilaterally decided on a pathway for this country, which was 80% reductions by 2050.
Climate Change and Flooding
Debate between David Mowat and Graham Stuart(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I do not have a direct constituency interest in this subject, but I want to talk about Paris. It is a pleasure to follow the last two Labour speakers, the right hon. Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). Much as I commend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for the work she has done, I am afraid that my analysis of Paris is not quite so sanguine as the opinions we have so far heard.
It is not true that the INDCs add up to a 2.7 °C limit. That analysis is somewhat dishonest because it is based only on contributions continuing further on a basis to which countries have not committed themselves. The right hon. Member for Don Valley called Paris a “universally binding” agreement, but it is not binding on anybody. That does not mean it is not a good start, and we have to start somewhere, but the fundamental point is that if the world had adopted the Climate Change Act in the way the shadow Secretary of State said, we would be on track for a rise of 1.5 °C. The United Nations framework convention on climate change says that to get to the limit of a 1.5 °C rise the world must reduce carbon emissions by between 75% and 90%, while the Climate Change Act states 80%. A fair challenge would be that developing countries find it much harder to do than developed countries. I accept that China, India and such countries need more slack, so the implication is that we perhaps need to go further, which is where some of the right hon. Lady’s numbers come from.
I want to spend the minutes available to me in analysing the performance of the developed countries at Paris, and particularly of the EU. One of the most startling factors about the INDCs that were put into the mix in Paris is that the EU submission for a 40% reduction over 40 years—1% a year, as it were—is 33% slower than the reduction demanded by the Climate Change Act and its resulting budgets. That is not all, however, because if we take out the UK bit of that EU INDC, the implication is that the rate of reduction will be between 40% and 45% slower than that for the UK. That is odd: what do other EU countries find so difficult about reducing emissions that we apparently do not find difficult? Parts of the EU are developing, relatively speaking, because they are catching up in terms of GDP. It might be reasonable for countries such as Poland and Romania to be given more slack. However, the truth is that countries such as Romania have made the most rapid reductions, so that is not the issue. Romania has made big reductions, because the 1990 baseline coincided with a period when its industry needed to be sorted out.
The issue is in the developed countries such as Austria, which has increased its emissions by 20% since 1990, and Ireland, Holland, Spain and Portugal, none of which have reduced their emissions since 1990. The House has criticised the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for a lack of ambition, yet we are part of an EU submission to a global conference that puts up with that kind of thing. I ask her to address why that can happen and what sanctions there are on those countries within the EU aegis that can stop it happening.
There are reasons why it is happening. Some countries have banned nuclear power. Some have banned carbon capture and storage. It is not that they have just not invested in it—it is illegal in some countries. CCS is illegal in Germany and it is building brand new unabated coal power stations. Its emissions are a third higher than ours per capita and per unit of GDP.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wonder whether he could expand further on the points he is making, because I am finding them most interesting.
David Mowat
My hon. Friend is always a team player. The extra minute will be put to great use.
The EU, taken collectively and not including us, failed abysmally to put forward at Paris anything close to what the right hon. Member for Doncaster North said, probably rightly, would need to be delivered to achieve 1.5°. We have to understand what the sanctions are for that, but the reasons are many and varied.
The EU got completely bogged down, as Members of this House sometimes do, in a fixation with renewables and renewables targets, rather than thinking about a carbon reduction target. Countries have put in place considerable renewables, but continue to burn coal at scale. The truth is that if we replaced coal with gas globally, it would be equivalent to increasing the renewables in the world by a factor of five. There are many points like that.
The fundamental point, which the Secretary of State will have to address in her high ambition coalition, which presumably does not contain Austria, is that we must ensure some fairness. Otherwise, places such as Redcar and Motherwell will have to get used to what has happened to those places, and that really is not right.
School Funding
Debate between David Mowat and Graham Stuart(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Graham Stuart
I do agree. As a result, the children of a multi-millionaire in one constituency or area receive more funding for their education than do the children attracting a pupil premium and from one of the poorest families in a neighbouring area. That is indefensible. The discrepancies are so enormous as to require change, notwithstanding the political challenges and difficulties of doing so.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
There would appear to be consensus on the Government side, and perhaps on the Opposition side, that enough is enough. This is the third Westminster Hall debate I have attended on this issue since I became an MP five years ago—the first was in April 2012—and at each debate it has been agreed, including by the Government, that this had to be fixed. If the door is ajar, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) said earlier, there would appear to be a wedge in it that is still to be removed. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must hear from the Minister about timing and not just about whether he agrees that the principle is wrong?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is right and I hope and expect that we will hear from the Minister on when the House will get the detail about what the Government propose to do.
To bring to life the example I mentioned of a relatively small secondary school with 920 pupils, the £1.9 million difference between two such schools in different areas is enough to pay the total costs—salaries and pension contributions—of 40 full-time teachers. That huge funding gap cannot be justified.
The gap is not explained by pupil deprivation. People might think that the system is designed to give more to areas of concentrated deprivation, whether urban or other. In 2011, Department for Education analysis showed that a school with 43% of pupils eligible for free school meals can receive £665 less funding per pupil than a school with less than 10% eligible pupils. Therefore, a school that serves the most deprived, as opposed to one that serves a remarkably affluent population, can receive hundreds of pounds less per pupil simply because of where it is rather than the nature and character of the children concerned, let alone their needs. Given the flat cash settlement for schools since that time, those figures will not have altered significantly.
I will give another example of the disparity that can exist between authorities. A secondary school pupil in York who receives the pupil premium, which is worth £935 this year, still has less spent on his or her education than an equivalent pupil in Birmingham who is not eligible for the pupil premium. Therefore, the child of the wealthy entrepreneur or lawyer in Birmingham receives more than the child from the poorest home in York.
Colleagues have mentioned the cross-border issue. The same applies in the relationship between Nottingham and the county that surrounds it: a 13-year-old pupil in the city gets more for their education than a disadvantaged child from the county next door, even though that child receives a pupil premium. Indeed, it is worse than that: a child who is in care in a certain area of the country and receives the pupil premium plus, worth £1,900, to reflect their needs, will still receive less than the child of a wealthy lawyer in Islington. That cannot be right. It needs to be fixed in a timely way and that is what we are gathered here today to tell the Minister.
We might think that if the disparity does not reflect deprivation, perhaps it reflects underlying performance in the system such as the quality of education in the schools, with more money going to help those areas doing less well. However, that would be wrong. Some of the best performing areas, notably in London, continue to receive thousands of pounds more per child than areas that are really struggling with education outcomes. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea receives 39% more funding per pupil under the schools block grant than my own area, the East Riding of Yorkshire, which loses out badly under the current funding arrangements.
The East Riding struggles with many of the challenges identified by Ofsted Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw in rural and coastal areas of England, where it can be hard to recruit and retain high-quality teachers, and partnerships between schools can founder because of the distance between them. We could take a coastal town and ask, “Why can’t we replicate the London challenge in East Yorkshire?” but anyone who drew a circle around Withernsea in my constituency to find all the schools that might be able to provide mutual support would find that half the circle was in the sea and the other half took in a swathe of rural East Yorkshire. That does not create easy conditions in which to build the collaborative regimes that have made such a difference in London and that is a further reason why such areas need to be fairly funded.
Contrary to any lazy misconceptions that areas such as the East Riding are rural idylls, there are areas of deep deprivation. Withernsea ranked in the top 10% of most deprived areas in England on both the income and employment indices of multiple deprivation in 2010. In a devastating speech in 2013, Sir Michael Wilshaw warned that
“many of the disadvantaged children performing least well in school can be found in leafy suburbs, market towns or seaside resorts”.
The East Riding also faces the additional costs associated with needing to run small, rural schools because of its geography. There is a limit to how far we can expect children to be bused, so it needs to run small schools, which are necessarily more expensive. It therefore has higher natural costs, and greater challenges in delivering high-quality education.
On top of that, the East Riding targeted as much funding as possible at its schools. Various blocks make up the dedicated schools grant, and historically the East Riding chose to stick most of the money for special educational needs in the schools block—it was entirely free to do so. It said to schools, “Use your budget to deliver that.” There was practically nothing in the high needs block, because that money had been put into the schools block. When the dedicated schools grant came in, which was based on what had been spent at that time and how it was accounted for, the East Riding received among the lowest levels of SEN funding in the whole country. That was not because there was a lack of challenge, but because of how the accounting had been done.
Our high needs funding is now the lowest in England, so the East Riding has had to move funding over to try to compensate for that. The situation was unfair already. Then we moved to the £390 million the Government came forward with last year to help lower-funded authorities, but that was distributed on the basis of the schools block, one of the three blocks that make up the dedicated schools grant, and as my local authority had its money in the schools block and not the high needs block, it ended up receiving a very much smaller share of the cake.
David Mowat
The Minister mentioned my point, so I want to come back on that. While the £390 million was welcome, it was not a change to the funding formula. We still do not have a national funding formula and, in fact, that £390 million affected Warrington much more poorly than the better-funded Westminster. After the £390 million, Warrington remains 11th from bottom of the 152 authorities. We will come back to that.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is why we need a whole new look at this and a national funding formula. As a result of issues relating to the blocks that colleagues may or may not have followed—it is complicated—after the £390 million, the East Riding became the lowest-funded local authority in the whole country. Members can imagine the gratitude my constituents felt: the then Chairman of the Education Committee and leading member of the campaign for fairer funding had somehow dragged the East Riding from being the third or fourth lowest-funded authority to the very lowest. I had to put my hand up and say, a little plaintively, “Well, we did get £1.8 million more.” But relatively speaking, we fell to the bottom. We can all see why people were not very happy, and they would like to know that there was a rationale. Someone has to come bottom, but let there be a rationale for that.
If we cannot develop a rationale, we should put people on the same money. In the Parliament before last, the all-party group on rural services conducted an inquiry on health and education funding. Professor Mervyn Stone, emeritus professor of statistics at Oxford University—a marvellous man with a beard like a biblical prophet’s—said, “If you move to equal funding per pupil or per patient across the country, you’d have something fundamentally unfair, because of the variety of costs”—I hope I am not unfairly putting words into his mouth—but we would still have something far fairer than any of the structures that anyone has come up with so far, let alone implemented in Government. Equal funding would be fairer.
Our call today is not for perfection but for a significant move to close the gaps. It is worth saying to colleagues who represent London seats that some areas of London—a few, admittedly—would benefit from a new national funding formula. Under the recommendations submitted to Government by the F40 campaign, which is the group of lowest-funded local authorities, there would still be, on average, more than £1,000 more per pupil in London than in the rest of the country. Take a class of 30. Whether it is in London or Warrington, there will be a classroom, kids and a teacher, and there might be a support assistant. A school in London will have £30,000 more a year to run that. Costs are higher in London, but not that much higher. It has to be right to move to something that is fairer to everyone.
Before the debate, I asked headteachers in Beverley and Holderness about the challenges they face. I will quote some of the problems that they highlighted. One said:
“We reduced staffing by reducing the number of cover supervisors and downsizing a number of teaching subject areas.”
Another said:
“Fewer sporting competitions—we can’t afford to pay for transport to away fixtures”—
imagine the cost of doing so in a sparsely populated rural area. Another said:
“Provision is stretched and children receive less intervention time”.
Another said:
“Resources are not being replaced or updated as we would like. The school guided reading scheme has been on the subject leaders’ development plan for the last 2 years and it is something that we cannot afford.”
That is the reality on the ground in schools in my constituency.
Those problems are not unique to the East Riding of Yorkshire—colleagues from up and down the country will testify to that, as is evidenced by the fact that there are so many of them here today. That is why the F40 group of local authorities, for which I serve as a vice-chairman, has come together to make the case for fairer funding. I pay tribute to the F40 campaign. It is led by Leicestershire Councillor Ivan Ould, who along with other F40 representatives has campaigned with great determination for almost 20 years. It is to the credit of the Government and Ministers that they are now listening to the campaign and are going to act.
I know colleagues will want me to say that we all owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He was a tireless champion of the issue in the previous Parliament, and I know he continues to be highly supportive in his new role as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. It is a delight to see him here.
Progress is being made, in the form of the extra £390 million that was allocated as a down payment towards fairer funding in 2014, as well as through the Government’s manifesto commitment to make that extra resource part of the baseline funding settlement. The Minister said that there have been two parts to this: last year’s £390 million and this year’s; I know it is going to be every year from now on.
Green Investment Bank
Debate between David Mowat and Graham Stuart(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Graham Stuart
I will come to that point on the continuing role of Government in a minute or two. It is not enough to say that something will be privatised. It could be privatised 100%, or it could be privatised 100% with strings attached, whose value we would have to try to estimate in advance—if something is sold 100%, the strings are not normally worth a great deal. Then there is the issue of whether a minority stake is retained and, if so, how it will be used. I will come to that point later, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that such questions, not least those of the Scottish Government, persist.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend. Surely the principal factor protecting how the bank will operate is the fact that the green purpose is still in the 2013 Act and the articles of the company. It therefore cannot do anything outside the green purpose. That is set out in the five points that my hon. Friend mentioned, or did I misunderstand his point?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is quite right. What happened—given the late tabling of amendments in the House of Lords this week, I think it came as something of a shock to the Government—is that the Office for National Statistics decided that if this place continues to determine the purpose of a supposedly privatised institution, such as this bank, that institution continues to be controlled not by its shareholders but by this place, and it is thus linked to the Government. Therefore, the ONS said that those ties have to be cut.
The nub of the matter is that those statutory guarantees and safeguards are being removed, albeit at the last minute—that was announced recently and will be coming to the House of Lords this week. We are asking how much the remaining wish-fulfilment requests will be worth in the real world of private finance, where people seek the maximum return for their money and often have a fiduciary duty to do so.
The senior directors of E3G—an environmental non-governmental organisation that works in these areas across the world—who were involved in the conception and creation of the bank, have heard worrying views from financiers that the bank may lean towards investing in safe, established technologies. Worse still, it could be attracted to purchases purely because of the virtue of the assets and cash flow that will come forward in due course, rather than because they are going concerns in their current form. It is possible, therefore, that it would be a zombie investment vehicle, rather than a genuine project-developing bank.
Those views were echoed by Bob Wigley, the former chief executive of the Green Investment Bank commission at the recent summit held by the Aldersgate Group. He warned of an “inherent tension” between the GIB’s continuing to invest in novel, more complex projects that are profitable in the long term, and shareholder pressure to maximise short-term returns on high-value investments, given their focus on quarterly performance. Such an outcome would defeat the objectives of the bank. It was and is intended to capitalise new green technologies and to invest in projects that other market operators shy away from. In doing so, it makes strides in environmental protection while simultaneously stimulating economic growth.
I went to the Conference of the Parties in Montreal in 2005, and from there I got involved in an organisation called Globe International, a global legislators’ organisation for a balanced environment. I am chairman of that group. I have been involved in the issue of climate change over the years; when I first came to this place, I was a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. It seems to me that the central challenge in tackling climate change, despite all the complexities, is to drive down the cost curve of clean and green approaches as quickly as possible.
For all the jobs that are created and for all the economic benefits, we cannot do that for free. One of the big challenges is to speed up the reduction in cost and ensure we have the institutions and frameworks to incentivise that. I say that because, for all the complexities around climate change and all the conferences I have been to over the years, I have always thought that we have to get the cost down as quickly as possible.
We have subsidised renewable technologies to try to make up for market failure, and successive Governments have struggled to create a dynamic regime that controls the level of public subsidy while encouraging investment. In that landscape, in which it is so hard to create dynamic frameworks that maximise value for money for the public purse but accept the need to pump-prime and drive the implementation of new technologies and lower costs, the bank is an important component.
On the bank’s next deal, it will have brought in a total of £10 billion into the UK green mix alone, of which less than a quarter has been from the state. To those outside who think the Green Investment Bank is rather arcane or marginal, I say that it is pretty fundamental to meeting the requirements of our industrial strategy and our desire for people to have affordable bills. We have got to ensure that we get it right. I urge the Government to consider how we can guarantee that the balance that I mentioned will be maintained under private ownership. For precisely that reason, I would be grateful if the Minister explained how the transfer will affect the shareholder relationship framework document that sets out the bank’s operating principles and strategic objectives.
Alongside primary legislation, the shareholder relationship framework document is an important safeguard to define the GIB’s role in the green marketplace. Article 3.1 states that the bank shall
“seek to align its activities with HM Government’s green policy objectives”
and
“seek to overcome market failures and improve market effectiveness”.
Article 4 lists the priority policy sectors and is clearly intended to be updated on a rolling basis in line with changing needs. It is hard to see how the SRFD could survive the sale of the Government’s shares. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is described in the SRFD as the bank’s “sole shareholder”, and the document as a whole appears designed for precisely that arrangement. It is likely that the SRFD would fall away if BIS ceased to be the sole shareholder. If the SRFD does survive a share disposal, the Government would not be able to protect it if their shareholding dropped below 25% and if the other shareholders or shareholder decided otherwise. If the Government retain a sufficient minority to resist any change to the SRFD, they would still lack the power to update the priority policy sectors that the bank invests in and supports.
How do the Government intend to safeguard the shareholder relationship framework document following a sale—or at least preserve its effect? Do they intend to maintain a significant minority holding in the bank? What assessment have they made of the implications of different sizes of shareholding that they may have going forward? Has any consideration been given to any form of arrangement, contractual or otherwise, to prevent the bank’s core purposes from being distorted or discarded after sale?
Before closing, I want to raise some related issues on which clarity would be helpful. The European fund for strategic investment is a pot of €21 billion of off-balance-sheet capital. That sounds a bit dodgy, but it basically means that it does not go on to national accounts for debt when used, which is quite important given the fiscal retrenchment that this country is going through and the commitments to eliminating debt and moving to surplus and so on.
The capital can be used by EU member states to finance energy and infrastructure projects. While the UK has committed an additional €8.5 billion to the fund, there is currently no effective intermediary within the UK to help British projects access the funds. Would a privatised Green Investment Bank be able to access the EFSI? If the privatised bank is an unsuitable vehicle to access it, will the Minister say what would be and how the UK’s green economy would be able to benefit? It would be a significant missed opportunity if there were no plan in place to ensure that we can leverage off-balance-sheet funds to which the UK is a key contributor. Indeed, if the UK were unable to access the funds, that might alter the whole calculus as to whether we stand to gain or lose by the privatisation of the bank.
While discussing alternative sources of finance, I also want to touch on the potential for the GIB to explore citizen investment. As I explained earlier, the bank has deliberately sought to make itself sustainable by operating a higher risk, higher return model, but one of the bank’s key aims since its inception has also been to accelerate delivery of the UK’s low-carbon future at the lowest possible cost—quite right, too. With that in mind, relatively cheap capital could be available from citizen investors investing via Green Investment Bank bonds. In Germany, such citizen investors are willing to accept lower returns on equity than traditional investment—more like 4% to 6% than 7% to 9%—because their motivations are not solely financial. Given the capital-intensive nature of most low-carbon investments, scaled-up citizen finance has the potential—only the potential—to make the delivery of large-scale infrastructure more affordable.
To get a sense of how important that is, a 2012 study by the Crown Estate showed that every 1% increase in the cost of capital leads to a 6% increase in the lifetime cost of an offshore wind farm. Similar analysis exists for the solar sector. The nature of both is that up-front investment is huge with relatively low costs thereafter to get a return. A huge premium must be paid when funding becomes more expensive for projects that require so much capital up front and there is therefore a huge incentive to secure the lowest possible financing costs for the GIB. Has the Minister considered the idea of encouraging citizen investment in the GIB? Might the Government pursue such a concept?
To conclude, we are at a crossroads when it comes to the development of the Green Investment Bank, with both new opportunities and old dangers presenting themselves. Failure to provide reassurance about the bank’s future role would send negative signals to low-carbon investors, who might feel that they have received a lot of negative signals already. That has the potential to threaten inward investment flows and undermine the low-carbon sector’s contribution to our ongoing economic recovery.
It is essential to get the privatisation process right and to remember that many investors and Governments will be watching how we decide to proceed with the GIB. As we head towards the UN climate summit in Paris this December, we have a responsibility to ensure that the Green Investment Bank remains a world leader in its field and a driver of investment and innovation in cutting-edge, low-carbon technologies.
David Mowat
It is indeed the fault of my hon. Friend; we can all agree on that at least.
We have the Climate Change Act—no other country in the world has come up with an Act that has also required an 80% reduction. It is also true that the level of carbon emissions in this country is lower than the EU average and one third lower than in Germany. We should be pleased about where we have made progress.