Oral Answers to Questions Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateEd Miliband
Main Page: Ed Miliband (Labour - Doncaster North)Department Debates - View all Ed Miliband's debates with the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberIn the Budget, the Government decided to transfer the mineworkers’ pension scheme investment reserve to members of the scheme. At the end of last month, the first increase in payments was made to over 100,000 ex-miners and their families. That has meant an extra 32% rise in people’s pensions each month—an average of £29 per week. The overturning of that historic injustice demonstrates the difference made by a Labour Government.
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and for his attentive engagement on the issue. I understand that British coal staff superannuation scheme trustees wrote to the Department last month with reform proposals. I urge the Secretary of State to meet them as soon as possible to rectify the long-standing injustice, especially given the increasing age and declining health of the beneficiaries.
I should say that the praise all goes to the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), for the progress that has been made. She is in sole charge of the issue. I know that she has been engaging with the trustees of the BCSSS; indeed, I believe she met them yesterday. She knows the point my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) is making about that scheme.
In Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, 1,600 miners received the biggest number of increased payments from the mineworkers’ pension scheme in Wales. All of my uncles on my mum’s side were miners. Dessie Winter, who is alive and well, will benefit from the MPS changes, but my uncles Georgie and Jackie were pit supervisors who paid into the separate National Coal Board staff pension scheme. They have sadly passed, but their colleagues deserve fairness. Since 1994, the Government have received £3.1 billion from the BCSSS. Will the Secretary of State say if he will look again at the staff side’s surplus payments to benefit our pensioners?
My hon. Friend makes his point with customary eloquence. I know from personal experience that there were people who were waiting for the injustice to be remedied but unfortunately died before that happened. He refers to part of the issue raised by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, as it then was, about 50:50 surplus sharing. I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is looking at that.
Correcting the injustice in the mineworkers’ pension scheme has made an incredible difference to the former miners in my constituency of Dunfermline and Dollar after so many years. At the weekend, I met representatives from the BCSSS in Fife, including the men and women who are particularly affected by that scheme and the women who worked in the canteens and other areas, who feel that they have been left behind by the changes to the MPS. Will the Secretary of State meet campaigners in Fife and across Scotland regarding this issue, and will he ensure that he makes progress as quickly as possible to correct the injustice that those people have suffered as well?
I know from my constituency that there is a strong feeling about the BCSSS. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has moved at speed to meet the trustees. The schemes are not exactly the same in some of their arrangements, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and (Graeme Downie) is right to say that there is certainly a read-across from some of the injustices in the MPS, and I know that the Minister for Industry is looking at that.
As a Collier, I welcome the Government’s announcement on the mineworkers’ pension scheme. However, as the Secretary of State has heard, the BCSSS members, including my constituent Mitch Wainwright, have raised concerns about unequal treatment, given the similarities between the schemes. What steps are the Secretary of State and the Minister taking to ensure that those former British Coal employees are treated as equitably as those in the MPS?
My hon. Friend is right about the read-across and the sense that the injustice that has been remedied in the MPS needs to be remedied in the BCSSS. There is also a real need for speed. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is on the case, as she was so brilliantly on the MPS, delivering in less than five months the justice that the Conservative Government never delivered in 14 years.
In my constituency of Makerfield, more than 500 people stand to benefit from changes introduced by this Government to the mineworkers’ pension scheme. For years, those people and their families stood by and watched as the Conservative Government stole their pensions and disrespected their work. I want us to celebrate our industrial past and those who made this nation wealthy and powered our industrial revolution. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to do more to remember the legacy of mining as well as to drive up the living standards of those on the mineworkers’ pension scheme?
My hon. Friend is right. I think I am right in saying—my hon Friend the Minister for Industry and I have had a discussion about this—that almost every constituency—
Every constituency has members of the MPS who are benefiting from this. I hope the Conservative party welcomes a Labour Government acting on this injustice—there is not much sign of that, though. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) makes the point about commemorating the work of miners, which is something that I feel strongly about and that we will pursue.
I am sure that any of my constituents who stand to benefit from this increase will welcome it, but how many members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme will be losing out on winter fuel payments worth up to £300 due to the decisions that this Government have taken?
This is actually to do with the disastrous economic legacy that was left by the Conservative party. The truth is that, even in tough times, the Labour Government are showing with their decisions on the MPS how we can make our society more just.
One of the questions I was most frequently asked when I was the trustee of one of the larger local authority pension schemes was what more the fund could do to tackle climate change, particularly in relation to investing in fossil fuel companies. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the conversations that he has been having with the Pensions Minister to ensure that pension funds do their bit to help get us to net zero?
That is an excellent question, Mr Speaker. I will write to the hon. Lady with a good answer.
I was pleased to see the Secretary of State saying last week that those who host clean energy infrastructure should benefit from it. When landowners and developers in my constituency are cashing in on building new solar, my constituents in Bicester and Woodstock think that it is only fair that benefits are shared. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether he will follow the model of other Governments in setting a mandatory—
I should declare an interest in that many of my relatives across south Wales are former miners. In the autumn Budget, the Government quite rightly made the decision to end the pension injustice for miners who were part of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, but they did not do the same for the 40,000 miners who were part of the British coal staff superannuation scheme, including 151 former miners in my own constituency. Will the Government guarantee that these men and women get the pension they deserve and explain why they will have to wait longer for justice than many of their former colleagues?
The hon. Member and I both have constituency interests in this matter, and he is right to say that. None the less, I say gently to him that no action was taken on this for a very, very long time—indeed, since privatisation. This Government took action in the Budget in less than five months. That is the difference. I have made it absolutely clear that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is now turning her excellent attention to the BCSSS.
May I welcome what the Government and the Minister are doing on this matter? This good scheme takes care of an injustice from some 30 years ago. There are those in Northern Ireland who worked in the mines, and their families are still concerned about this issue. Can we have a timescale for the completion of the work on the British coal staff superannuation scheme, which some of them would have qualified for?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am glad that he, too—like everyone else in this House, according to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry—has constituents who will be benefiting from this work. The best I can say to him on this issue, which has now been rightly raised a number of times, is that the Minister for Industry will have heard the calls made with real urgency, which I think we all recognise, and will act accordingly.
Last Friday, we published our landmark clean power action plan, which sets out the route towards our world-leading 2030 clean power mission, including wholesale reform of the grid and planning to make it happen. This is the route to getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets and delivering energy security, lower bills and good jobs for the British people, as well as tackling the climate crisis.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Given Wales’s tradition and history of fuelling the UK’s energy needs, can the Secretary of State tell us what his plans are to put Wales at the heart of our energy security and net zero agenda?
My hon. Friend asks a really important question. The whole clean power plan is about benefiting all four nations of the United Kingdom, including Wales, and we work closely with the Welsh Government on these issues. Before this Labour Government came to office, they were actually trailblazers on how we could have publicly owned generation, and that is one of the things that we and GB Energy are working with them on.
Meur ras, ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. We have seen the terrible consequences for households of fossil fuel energy insecurity, and we cannot allow this to happen with the transition to renewables. However, to achieve our net zero goals, we will have to see a massive increase in demand for critical minerals such as tin and lithium, much of the supply and processing of which will be dominated by economically bad actors. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government will be mitigating this clear and present danger?
I very much enjoyed my trip to my hon. Friend’s constituency before the general election. He is an incredibly powerful advocate for the way his area can source some of the critical minerals we need, including lithium, and he is right about this. The concentration of supply chains, including critical minerals, has taken a generation to arrive, but we must unwind it, and it is one of the many things we are working on as a Government.
Small modular reactors are less land intensive, are very efficient and would get us to clean energy very quickly if the Government were to get on and actually support some orders. As land is in scarce supply, when will the Government get on board with nuclear, instead of shackling themselves to the inefficient, land-destroying, countryside beauty-destroying and inefficient solar.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we support the SMR programme, and we are driving it forward through Great British Nuclear. I am afraid he is making a terrible mistake, which is that we need all of these clean technologies at our disposal—we need nuclear, we need renewables, we need carbon capture and storage—and the difference is that this Government are getting on with it. We have delivered more in five months than the last Government did in 14 years.
Despite lifting the onshore wind ban in England, the clean power action plan shows that, by 2030, 8,600 MW of onshore wind will be needed in England and Wales, 5,000 MW of which will be mainly in Wales, with bits in England. Can the Secretary of State outline exactly how Wales will be benefiting from this huge ramp up in onshore wind, rather than the benefits being extracted out of Wales?
I have to say to the hon. Lady that I do not see it that way. The reality is that the country is totally vulnerable to the rollercoaster of the fossil fuel markets. We do not need to look into a crystal ball; we just need to look at the record: we saw the worst cost of living crisis in generations. So long as we are exposed in this way, people in Wales and across the country are vulnerable. That is why clean power is so important, and the Opposition should get on and support it.
In the clean power 2030 document published last week, the Government state that they are
“progressing the post-2030 generation interventions, with final decisions on Sizewell C and the Great British Nuclear-led Small Modular Reactor programme”,
but no date is specified for the final investment decision on Sizewell, no date is specified for completion of the down-selection SMR process, there is no indication of a route to market for advanced modular or other technologies, and there is no mention of Wylfa at all. So is it any wonder that the nuclear industry holds a suspicion that this Government are not serious about nuclear, that the damascene conversion to nuclear power professed by the Secretary of State is a false one and that, for the Government, it is renewables at any cost and the exclusion of everything else?
I find the hon. Gentleman quite extraordinary, and not in a good way. The last Government left not only a generalised absolute mess in the public finances, but lots of the programmes that he is talking about were not even funded. The difference with this Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that she put the money for Sizewell in the Budget. That is something the Conservatives simply do not understand. [Interruption.] You get the point.
It was us in government who bought the Wylfa and Oldbury sites from Hitachi last year, giving much-needed certainty to the workforce and local communities on both sites. It was on 22 May that we announced that Wylfa was our preferred location for a third gigawatt-scale reactor, again giving a boost to that community and the wider industry. I have three questions. Is it still the Government’s intention to reach 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050? Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that that is impossible without another gigawatt-scale reactor? If a third gigawatt-scale reaction is planned, will it be built at Wylfa and, if not, what is the future for the Wylfa site?
The hon. Gentleman’s story about Wylfa says it all. He says his Government had this great plan for Wylfa, but they had no money behind it.
Yes, but the hon. Gentleman does not say how the power station will be funded. The truth is that this is elementary economics. If things are announced, they need to be able to be funded, and the Conservatives need to learn that lesson.
We are already seeing the benefits of our energy superpower mission and investment in jobs. Since the start of November, we have seen a £1 billion investment in Hull by Siemens Gamesa, supporting 1,300 jobs in blade manufacturing. Ørsted has announced £100 million of orders for UK firms, and we have reached financial close on the UK’s first carbon capture in Teesside. That is what it means to have a Government delivering jobs and investment for the British people.
There appears to be inconsistency between what Ministers are saying about the report by the National Energy System Operator and what the CEO of NESO told the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee last week. Can the Secretary of State answer this clearly: does the NESO report forecast higher or lower energy bills under his policy?
I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, as the shadow Secretary of State has asked me about that. [Interruption.] I will answer the question. Page 77 of the NESO report says very clearly what happens to overall costs in the system: electricity costs are reduced by £10 per MWh. As NESO says, it is for Government to make policy choices that determine the precise impact on bills, but the report is clear that the system will be cheaper. It is completely logical to say that that will lead to a reduction in bills.
Labour’s policy on the North sea will cost the country £12 billion in tax receipts, which would be enough to cover the winter fuel payment for many, many years. Pensioners will be in the cold this winter, and this is a policy that no other major economy is pursuing. How can the Government possibly justify it?
These are more fantasy numbers from the right hon. Lady. The truth is that the North sea has lost a third of its employment in the past decade. The only future for the North sea is in what this Government are doing: investing in carbon capture and storage, in offshore wind and in hydrogen. That is the future.
That is not my figure; it is a figure from industry—£12 billion in lost North sea tax receipts, in addition to £8 billion for an energy company that will not generate energy, and at least £200 billion for a 2030 target that we now know will not cut bills. Is it not true that pensioners will be sitting in the cold this winter to pick up the bill for this Secretary of State?
No. The case is that the Conservatives left us dependent on fossil fuels, which led to the worst cost of living crisis in living memory. The tragedy is that they are doubling down on their failed policy. The only answer for lower bills is clean, home-grown energy that we control.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Great British Energy—headquartered in Aberdeen—is already up and running. Our plans for Great British Energy will be rolled out in the new year. Those plans include working with local communities for solar on schools and hospitals, so that we can start cutting bills for public services and local communities.
The truth is that there is only one way to get bills down sustainably in this country, which is to drive towards clean energy. The Conservatives used to believe that, too; then, in September 2023, the former Prime Minister took them on an anti-net zero crusade, and it is only getting worse.
I will not answer the hon. Gentleman directly, but I will say that I am working with my colleagues across Government on this crucial issue. We will do everything we can to drive down Russia’s benefits from its oil and gas industry, because that is a crucial part of the war effort to help Ukraine.
My hon. Friend is right about this. We must not have short memories here, because the truth is that the cost of living crisis that we saw after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only hit families and businesses across Britain, but continues to hit them today. That is why the drive for clean power is so important. Every solar panel we put up, every wind turbine we erect, and every piece of grid we build makes us more secure as a country.
We will look at the scheme in the spending review. I believe that it is important not just to Scotland but to the whole UK, but I want to level with the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the House: it requires significant financial resources. We found the resources for track 1 of carbon capture, usage and storage and we want to find the resources for track 2, but that, as I have said, will be part of the spending review.
Seventy-five per cent of voters think that all new homes should come with solar panels on the roof as standard. Do the Government agree?
I am very sympathetic towards this issue, and we are in discussions with our colleagues across Government. Watch this space.
Cheshire is leading the way in CCUS, whether it is in hydrogen production, where it is providing the means of transition as a new industry is established, or in hard-to-abate sectors such as glass or cement production, where CCUS is a vital decarbonisation component. Our strategy is creating jobs, growing our skills base and unlocking a low-carbon future. Does the Minister agree that it will not be possible to get to net zero without CCUS?
The Grimsby to Walpole National Grid scheme will see pylons almost twice the height of the existing ones being placed across the flat landscape of the fens. Why does the Secretary of State think that the cost of chasing his unrealistic 2030 target should be disproportionately borne by rural communities?
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman. The truth is that we need to build the grid, regardless of whether the target is 2030 or 2035. This Government are being honest and open with people in saying that the grid needs to be built. If we do not build the grid, we will remain massively vulnerable as a country.
Last year, the UK imported 43% of our energy. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as well as protecting bill payers from the volatility of international fossil fuel markets and giving us energy independence, we have the potential for economic benefits from exporting electricity and hydrogen through the clean power plan?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. It is about energy independence for Britain, and about becoming a clean energy superpower that can export energy and benefit as a country. The opportunities are huge, which is why we are getting on with it.
I think the Secretary of State is now arguing that energy bills will fall by £300 by 2030. A simple question: how much will they rise by before then?
I am disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I should not be surprised. The truth is that there is only one future for Britain that reduces bills for good: a clean power mission. We can carry on being vulnerable, and we can carry on with fossil fuels, but we will be in the grip of petrostates and dictators. This Government are not willing to leave us exposed.
The Lynemouth biomass power station in my constituency has some very ambitious and exciting projects involving carbon capture and storage, but it is waiting for some major decisions by the Department. Will the Minister agree to meet me so that we can tackle these pressing outstanding issues?
Thirteen oil and gas fields have been licensed for new drilling of dangerous fossil fuels but are still awaiting final approval. The Government paused those decisions while doing a consultation, but the consultation will not change the science: if we are to meet our climate targets, those fossil fuels must stay in the ground. Will the Secretary of State do the right thing by the poorest in our country, who are always at the sharpest end of climate action, and ensure that those licences will not be granted?
This is a Government with a world-leading position when it comes to oil and gas, and we will do the right thing for the environment and climate change and the right thing to ensure that there is a just transition in the North sea.
On behalf of my constituents, I want to thank the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and the whole team for the excellent work that has been carried out to deliver justice on the mineworkers’ pensions. Can I urge them to act with alacrity in relation to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and may I invite the Minister to look at some of the energy pilots that are making use of mine water from abandoned mine workings?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a brilliant campaigner on this issue for a very long time. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have heard what he said. This is the difference: this is a Labour Government delivering justice for mineworkers across our country and their families, which is all part of delivering our mission for the country.