Energy-Intensive Industries

Debate between David Mowat and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 10th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing the debate, which is the second this week on energy-intensive industries. We did ceramics earlier in the week, so we are giving it a bit of a go, and it is good that we are because we do not talk about it enough. As he said, there are something like 900,000 jobs in the industry and its supply chain and, by and large, those are well paid, good jobs that we do not want to lose, particularly by accident or through carelessness.

On my validation for speaking in the debate, I do not have a particularly major industry in my constituency, but at one time in my life I worked at the Port Talbot steelworks. I remember seeing the blast furnace at Port Talbot and I suggest that all BIS Ministers and shadow Ministers see a blast furnace—while they are still here—because they are a magnificent sight.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

While the hon. Gentleman is on that point, can I tell him that my father worked for more than 20 years at Llanwern just a few miles down the road from Port Talbot? I was fortunate enough to be employed there for six months as a young man and came in close proximity to a blast furnace. Unfortunately, at the time I was there, three workers were killed by a gas leak from one of the blast furnaces.

[David Mowat]

The shadow Minister has validated himself in the debate. They are a sight that will always be remembered—I will certainly always remember it. I did not spend six months there, but I did work there.

Many industries have Ministers in this place who are directly responsible for them. We have a Minister for the City or banks, a Minister for farming, a Minister for sport, a Minister for IT and digital, a Minister for arts and a Minister for small business. Those are all important segments, but there is no Minister for the foundation industries and I think that shows a little.

Let us recap on what we are talking about—ceramics and bricks, chemicals, steel and aluminium. I should have said that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the UK aluminium industry, which is an interesting group to chair because globally aluminium is a real growth industry. It is increasingly displacing ferrous and other metals in the car industry. It is actually a very green material that is light and strong and we are seeing it used more and more. In the UK, though, that industry, which used to have three primary smelting works, now has only one, and that one—in fact, it is in Scotland—is under consultation for closure.

That is not to say that the aluminium industry in the UK is in bad shape. We are going more into secondary processes, which are higher value processes and there is an element of logic in that, but it is a shame that we are losing the raw material-producing capability that is also at risk in other industries such as steel. I will reflect on some of the reasons for that. I will talk about two things: energy prices, as my hon. Friend did, and what we are doing to ourselves—it is nearly all to ourselves—in that regard; and some of the aspects of our position on market economy status vis-à-vis China. I would like clarification from the Minister on that. Others may also talk about that, because some bits of it are not clear to me.

The basic premise is that it is not possible for us as a country to have a march of the makers, with a resurgence in manufacturing—that is in the north by definition, because much of that is in the north—on the back of differentially higher energy prices vis-à-vis our neighbours, whether in Europe or in the United States. We are not talking about China; we are talking about differences in approach in Europe and, to a lesser extent, in the United States.

In terms of energy, there are two sorts. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked about the gas industry in the United States and what that has done. This is not a debate about fracking other than to say that we sometimes talk about it as though it is a new industry and we are deciding whether it, and all that goes with it, will happen. The truth, of course, is that fracking has already happened—it has been going certainly for more than a decade—and it has transformed the United States’ eastern seaboard. Something like a million jobs have been created and the gas industry—gas is not just a raw material for energy but a feedstock for chemicals—in the United States has been transformed by it.

It is also worth reflecting that, as a result, the United States’ carbon emissions have massively come down, faster than any other country in the world. The United States did not sign up to Kyoto, but had they signed up they would have made their targets because of the displacement of coal by gas. All of us who are concerned about the environmental aspects of that need to reflect on that.

One of the interesting questions is: have the million jobs created in the United States affected us in the UK? Actually, yes, they have—only at the margin, but everything in all these industries happens at the margin. By and large, whole industries do not get moved; by and large, industries such as the one in Teesside are not closed down. What happens is that a decision is made about an individual process plant. It is now more cost-effective to put that plant in the United States than in Teesside, where it may have gone 10 years ago, because they are paying one third of the price for that gas there. Those of us who are taking opportunistic positions regarding fracking—whether it is INEOS in Grangemouth or elsewhere—need to reflect on what that means for the 900,000 workers in this industry.

Vis-à-vis the rest of Europe, our gas prices are not out of line; in fact, if anything, they are a little cheaper than much of the rest of Europe. Electricity prices in this country are broadly 80% higher than the European mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale said. This morning, Germany and France were paying 4p per unit. Our energy-intensive industries are paying 9p per unit, and there are two components of that. One is the carbon price floor, which I am sure the shadow Minister will rightly address. That is a tax on manufacturing, and it is arguably a tax on the north. It is certainly not a tax that I like.

As well as the carbon price floor, which we have unilaterally imposed in this country, there is the renewables and climate change stuff that we continue to impose on this country unilaterally. I want to consider the massive differences between what we are doing on this and what others are doing—not the Chinese or the Indians, because it is quite reasonable that they do less than us as they have so far to catch up, but the rest of the EU.

One of the big myths about carbon policy is that it is the EU making us do all this stuff. There was a bit of that in some renewables directives, but by and large, that is not the case. By and large, nothing going on now in climate change policy—policy that we may or may not agree with—is caused by the EU. It is caused by us, by the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Committee on Climate Change.

The point that needs to be made—and the Minister and shadow Minister need to be cognisant of it—is that the 2008 Act has imposed on our industry the need to reduce carbon emissions by 80% over a 60-year period. The European submission to the Paris summit requires a change of 40% over 40 years. That is a lower gradient, and furthermore, it is easier to get a higher gradient to begin with. They are doing the easy bit at a much lower rate. If we take the UK out of the overall European submission to Paris, it means that—roughly speaking—they have signed up for an emission reduction rate of 50% to 60% lower than us. Either we are right or they are right, but it seems odd to me.

The reason for the difference is clear: in those countries, the people who run the foundation and heavy engineering industries have much more lobbying power with Government, perhaps as the banks do in our country. As a result, they look at the proposals and say, “We’re going to do what’s reasonable. We’re not going to bankrupt ourselves.” The trajectory of emission reduction to which the EU has signed up is 60% lower than the one we are giving ourselves in the UK. The EU has not even assigned that amount by country yet; it is just a total EU level. That should give us all pause for thought. Maybe we are right, maybe they are right, but our trajectories are certainly different.

The European emissions trading scheme was supposed to reduce carbon emissions. The European Parliament had a vote three or four years ago because the ETS did not set a high enough price for carbon. It implies a carbon price of €5 per tonne of CO₂. The vote was to try to get that price up, but the Germans, the French and others would not agree to it. That is one reason that on Monday night, an Opposition amendment to the Energy Bill will advocate going further down the path of unilateral action here—in that case, because of the failure of the emissions trading scheme in Europe. If it were not so serious for the 900,000 people whose livelihoods we are talking about, it would almost be funny.

In terms of progress on emissions and climate change, a very good database called EDGAR—the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research—shows emissions per capita, per unit of GDP for all the countries in the world, and how they are moving and changing. It is worth reflecting that Austria, a relatively prosperous, affluent part of Europe, has increased its carbon emissions per head by 20% since 1990, while we have decreased ours by something like 15% or 20%. There is no consistency of approach, which is extraordinary.

We have talked in the past about the fact that countries such as Germany are building a new generation of coal power stations. Their renewables are not going up, but in fairness, they have done a lot on renewables in terms of emissions. However, Germany’s carbon emissions are one third higher than the UK’s per unit of GDP and about 30% higher per capita. We need to reflect on that and on the actions that we think it is necessary to take. I make the point again that either we are right or they are right, but for too long, we have listened to people’s words on this subject and not looked at their actions.

I asked the Committee on Climate Change at a meeting recently, “What about these industries? All other things being equal, if we decide that we wish to continue having the highest energy prices in Europe and so on, what does that mean for them?” One person on the committee said, “It’s about comparative economic advantage.” The theory of comparative economic advantage says that a developed economy should probably not be doing some of these things. The implication is that it is probably right to leave steel production behind and move into making aeroplanes and so on. That is the thinking in some parts of the Committee on Climate Change. Either parliamentarians wish to challenge that, or we accept it. At the moment, that is the consensus on action—I personally think it is wrong.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman makes, as ever, an expert speech. That kind of thinking is wrong because whatever the economic theory of comparative advantage says—having taught it, I know what it says—it is ultimately in our country’s strategic interest to maintain a steel-making capacity. Does he agree?

[David Mowat]

I completely agree. That is precisely why that sort of thinking must not gain currency. However, let me be quite clear: it is out there.

I want this to be a debate and to talk about the facts, but that thinking is out there in parts of the Labour party as well. I have often reflected on why many Labour MPs who represent seats in the industrial north are less concerned about this issue than I would expect them to be. It is the same in Scotland. I think it is because there are almost two Labour parties. I do not want to get into a fight, but there are the guys who represent the big industrial communities and understand the issues, and then there is what I would call—I do not mean to be pejorative—the Primrose Hill branch of the party, which believes in cutting emissions at all costs at all times to show leadership to the world. Frankly, the consequences will be the consequences. That is what we should be talking about today.

It is important that the Front Benchers understand the points I have made and that unilateral action will take us to a place where we do not want to be. This is not only about energy-intensive industries. All industries use electricity—for example, the manufacturing industry uses electricity—with the possible exception of the banks, although even they need to put the lights on and get their computers to work.

Finally, I want to ask the Minister about market economy status and why the UK Government are apparently so keen to fight for that for the Chinese when we know what the implications are likely to be for this industry. I am looking for clarification, because when people lobby me and ask why we are doing this, I say, “Well, there must be other industries that benefit from China having market economy status.” I am interested to know whether she can tell us which industries on the other side of the coin will benefit, because my guess is that it will be financial services and banking. If that is the case, we should be clear and just say that, and that it is a decision we have made for the UK economy.

In summary, let me repeat these points. There will not be a march of the makers or if there is, it will be a march to the EU, to the USA and to China, if we continue to concede a massive gas price advantage to the United States and a massive electricity price advantage to the European Union, and if we are not careful about the issue of dumping in China. The Minister is not from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, so she may not be able to answer this question, but I also want to know why the UK is going unilaterally so much further than others and whether there is any chance of others following us in future, because it is very clear that they have not followed us yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing this debate. It was not so long ago that we debated similar issues in this Chamber, led by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and we had similar discussions about some of the issues relating to energy-intensive industries, with a particular emphasis on fracking.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale rightly pointed out how crucial these industries are to the foundation of our economy and to jobs in the supply chain particularly. They have a multiplier effect. Even from the basic statistics, we can extrapolate far beyond them to the ripple effects throughout our economy, often with good quality, high-skilled jobs.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the problem of energy prices in the UK and, as ever, gave a thoughtful and informative speech. He was followed by the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) who, in a way, put his finger on many of the fault lines. I will perhaps return to his comments about the Labour party in a moment, but until yesterday, none of us was sure which Department would respond to the debate. Only at the last moment did I find out that it would the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills instead of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The information from official channels was that there was some question. That is not a criticism and I hope the Minister does not take exception, but it emphasises the fault line in this area that the hon. Gentleman explored in his comments about the tension in the appropriate desire for us to do something about climate change.

We have the Climate Change Act 2008, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, which was supported cross-party—not by everyone in the House obviously, but certainly by those on both Front Benches. It is an appropriate ambition. We want to save the planet from the possible consequences of not acting, but the tension arises from the need to make sure that in doing so we do not kill off our vital industries. The hon. Gentleman pointed out the tension, which exists not just in my party, but probably in the Conservative party to some extent. The fact that this debate was allocated late, with apparently some internal debate about who should take it, illustrates his point.

The hon. Gentleman’s speeches are always informative and educational for all of us. He brings a level of expertise that is sometimes unusual among elected Members. He would probably make a very fine Minister in this area if he received a call from No. 10. I have probably killed of any prospect of that by mentioning it, but it is without question. He always provides us with a challenge and food for thought in his remarks.

From time to time, people try to say that we should not talk politics in the House of Commons, which is vacuous as a statement. If one cannot talk politics in the House of Commons, where can one? The hon. Gentleman made a point about tension in the Labour party, which he said he had identified between some part of north London—

[David Mowat]

Primrose Hill.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Primrose Hill lot. I am not an expert on the areas of London. MPs from the north, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom may be more au fait with the industries we are talking about. He may be right about that tension. All political parties are broad churches, including his own. There is a strand in his party of people who are extremely laissez-faire in their attitude to the economy and would take the view that if the steel industry cannot survive in the bitter winds of market forces, it is appropriate for it to suffer the consequences and to diminish and disappear. The emphasis is more on the comparative advantage that the UK has enjoyed in industries such as finance, banking and so on.

To an extent, both the hon. Gentleman and I want to see a broader and stronger consensus develop on the need for an industrial strategy, with a recognition that the Government have a serious role to play if we are to have a march of the makers. In recent years, I have felt that that political consensus was genuinely developing. I pay some credit to a previous Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, and Skills, Lord Mandelson, who came back from the European Union having had an epiphany of sorts while a European Commissioner. When he was a Trade and Industry Minister previously, I felt that he had displayed too much of that laissez-faire attitude towards British industry, but having seen other countries in the European Union and how they do things, he came back realising that it was vital for the British Government to take a much stronger interest in UK plc and particularly the high-skill, often energy-intensive industries that would genuinely help to rebalance our economy away from the unhealthy state that it had got into with too much reliance on the banking and finance industries.

We can perhaps create that stronger consensus in British politics, given the views that are shared among all parties across the House, to achieve a longer-term strategy for British industry.

[David Mowat]

I probably am a bit more laissez-faire than the hon. Gentleman. Having said that, I do understand that an industrial strategy is needed in some cases at some point. To the extent that the Government have got involved in these industries, however, it has been to impose—apparently without necessarily understanding that they were doing it—higher energy costs than their competitors in the EU. We have already intervened in an unhelpful way. That is really my concern.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed, and that was the central strand, obviously, of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and why I described them as a challenge to us all. The points that he made provide deep food for thought about what is the best way forward to ensure that we fulfil our obligations in relation to climate change, but also have the kind of strategy that will make sure that these industries can be sustained and can prosper into the future, because of their importance to our economy.

The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about market economy status for China. My view would chime with his remarks in that regard as well. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to his question about the beneficiaries, and the request to be more overt about the anticipated beneficiaries of the UK’s support for market economy status for China. My fear is that if we roll over too easily on that subject—whoever the beneficiaries are—it could have extremely negative consequences for some of the industries that we are discussing.

At a time when Chinese steel is being sold at under cost price in European markets and in the UK, with the consequences that we all know about for British jobs and British industry, it seems extraordinary that we are going out of our way to be favourable towards market economy status for China, instead of perhaps using it as a bargaining lever when discussing the Chinese Government’s policy on the steel industry. It is 70% state owned after all, so one would have thought that the Chinese communist Government had some influence over it. I know that some of the consequences of that over-production are now being felt in China. At the recent congress of the Chinese communist party, it had to announce a reduction in steel making in many of those areas.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) told us about energy intensive industries in Scotland. She mentioned tidal power, which leads me to ask the Minister whether she can give any update— I think I might know what the answer will be—on the Government’s proposals in relation to the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. That is a current issue—no pun intended—and I hope that she will be able to say something about it when she responds to the debate.

I do not want to detain hon. Members too long today, but we did receive a briefing ahead of the debate from EEF, the Manufacturers Organisation. It posed some questions, and it would be helpful if the Minister could respond to them, in the spirit of the debate that we are having today. I will outline the four challenges that it poses—that is probably the easiest thing to do—rather than repeating what has been said already.

EEF says:

“The Government should support industry’s calls for major changes to the proposed reforms of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) post 2020.”

I wonder what the Minister’s position is on that. EEF also says:

“Ministers must bring political pressure to bear on the EU Commission to approve the ‘second’ state aid application in relation to the EII compensation package without further delay.”

Again, I wonder what the Government’s response is to that challenge from EEF. It also says that in the Budget

“the Government should look to announce a scrapping or phasing out of the Carbon Price Floor.”

The hon. Member for Warrington South rightly mentioned that. EEF continues:

“At the very least we must see a commitment to continue the current freeze.”

EEF also says:

“Government must use the 2050 Roadmap project to devise a radical new approach to the decarbonisation of energy intensive industry. This must include a credible industrial carbon capture and storage (CCS) strategy and serious consideration of financial support for industry.”

I do not want to detain hon. Members too much longer, but I wonder whether the Minister could respond to the points that EEF has helpfully provided to us for this debate.

Green Investment Bank

Debate between David Mowat and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 29th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time. All I will say is that he has let himself down slightly by injecting a slight note of partisanship into our proceedings; I knew it would inevitably come. Given the sort of person I am, of course, I would never respond to anything of that kind.

[David Mowat]

Without wanting to take this too much further, I should say that I do not think it was Luxembourg and Malta; I think it was Cyprus and Malta. Perhaps we could clarify that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

That is right. We have all read the reports about the confusion of the international community ahead of the Paris conference as to what the position of the UK is now, having been at the forefront, for more than a decade—under both the coalition Government and the previous Labour Government—of pressing forward on renewables.

[David Mowat]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will.

[Graham Stuart]

It’s all my fault.

[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.

[Kevin Brennan]

If it was the fault of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness that we descended into partisanship, credit should go to the hon. Member for Warrington South for raising the tone once again, bringing us back on topic and pointing out that it is important that the UK shows leadership in this area. Perhaps we can all agree on that, even if we do not agree on the extent to which that is currently being displayed by the Conservative Government.

As I said, this has essentially been a very successful innovation. One problem—we have had differences of opinion about this during the debate—has been the restrictions placed on the Green Investment Bank in relation to borrowing. Obviously, the Treasury does not want that to appear on the books, because of the targets that it has set in relation to deficit reduction. However, we have come to a strange pass when even something that we could all agree would be a good thing, even good borrowing, is bad if it is on the Government books, simply because it is on the Government books. Hon. Members touched on this during their contributions. Sometimes in this country we seem to be the prisoners of public accountancy convention, rather than common sense, in relation to when borrowing is a good and effective thing to do—when it is to invest to grow our economy in the future in a sustainable way.