Energy Security

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and can I take the opportunity to welcome him to his new role? We support new nuclear, and I welcome the announcement on Sizewell. The Climate Change Committee tells us that nuclear should play a role as part of the balanced pathway to net zero. In his reply, could he tell us the timetable for Sizewell’s final investment decision and when we expect it to be up and running? I also welcome the return of the delayed Energy Bill, which should never have been paused by the Government.

As for the rest of the statement, I am bound to ask: is that it? Alongside nuclear, we need a sprint for cheap, clean, home-grown renewables, and I have to say to the Secretary of State that, given the chaos, confusion and embarrassment of the Government on onshore wind, I find it extraordinary that he did not clear that up in the House today. Let me remind the House of some facts. The ban on onshore wind in England that they put in place in 2015 has raised bills for every family in this country by £150 each, and keeping the ban in place up to 2030 would mean customers paying £16 billion more on bills compared with a target of doubling onshore wind. Let us be clear: opposing onshore wind waves the white flag on our energy security and raises bills for families.

The only reason we are debating this issue is not that the public do not support onshore wind—they do, by 78%, according to the Department’s own polling—but that dinosaurs on the Government Benches oppose clean energy, and David Cameron and every leader since has indulged them. The problem is that the Secretary of State, who prides himself on being a truly modern man, is part of the fossilised tendency. He was part of the lobbying effort against lifting the ban in April. He said onshore wind was an “eyesore” and created “problems of noise”, and he urged the then Prime Minister to “largely” reject it. I may have had some issues with his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but the Secretary of State’s position is making the Victorian of the Tory party look positively on trend, because the right hon. Member for North East Somerset after all called for the consenting regime for onshore wind to be brought into line with other infrastructure. Can the Secretary of State clear up once and for all what his position is on onshore wind? Will he now act in the national interest, properly end the ban and finally bring the consenting regime in line with other infrastructure?

On solar, it is the same problem. The Prime Minister spent the summer saying he wanted to block solar, echoed by the Environment Secretary in the last couple of weeks. Blocking solar risks preventing the equivalent of 10 nuclear power stations-worth of power being built, so will the Secretary of State rule out the plans of the previous Environment Secretary to further block solar power on land?

On energy efficiency, frankly this Government should be ashamed of their record, with the green deal fiasco, the green homes grant fiasco and energy efficiency installations running 20 times lower than under the previous Labour Government. Can the Secretary of State tell us from his announcement, which I am afraid contains no new resources, in what year the 19 million cold, draughty homes below energy performance certificate band C would be brought up to that level of decency under his plan? We would do it in a decade. Can he confirm that, at the current rates of installation, under this Government it would not happen till the next century?

We have seen five Energy Secretaries since 2019. To overcome the bills crisis we face and to tackle the climate crisis, we need ambition, consistency and going all in on the green energy sprint. I am afraid we have not had these things from this Government. All we have had is inconsistency, dithering and a Government looking over their shoulder at their own Back Benchers. The Secretary of State has a lot of work to do to convince the country that that is going to change, and if he does not, it means that this Government will land us with higher bills and more energy insecurity, and will fail to take the leadership we need in tackling the climate crisis.

[Grant Shapps]

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions, but I did point to a quote from him back in 2010, when he said it was “pie in the sky” that the then new Conservative Government would get to 40% renewables by 2020. What happened? By 2020 we had got to 43.1% renewables. That is our record of delivery when it comes to renewables, so I do not think we need to take too many lectures from the Labour party, or from the party that five minutes ago did not support new nuclear power. It failed to commission any of it during its time in office—13 years, was it?—but now that we are getting on with it, all of a sudden it seems to have swapped sides.

On wind power, both offshore and onshore, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that the strike prices in the contracts for difference are now lower for any version of power production at all when it comes to offshore wind. These turbines are now so large that they cannot even be constructed onshore. They are so big that the turbines cannot be carried by road; they have to put offshore.

[Edward Miliband]

How big are they?

COP27

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by echoing the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah? The Government must ensure that his case is not forgotten. He must be released. I also pay tribute to the COP26 President for his service and to his team of civil servants in the COP unit.

Despite the welcome progress at COP27 on support for climate-vulnerable countries, which I acknowledge, we should be clear: on the crucial issue of 1.5°, this summit failed. The planet is hotter than it has been for 125,000 years. We already see the disastrous effects of 1° of warming, but rather than tackle this crisis, too many leaders are fiddling while the world burns. As a result, we are currently on track, according to the UN, for a catastrophic 2.8° of warming. We should tell the truth: unless we do something different and fast, we will leave a terrible legacy. Against this backdrop, no country can be patting itself on the back. As a country that considers itself a climate leader, we have a responsibility and opportunity to set the pace in the year ahead, and our moral authority in the negotiations depends on it.

First, to go further and faster, and to persuade others, too, I urge the Minister to commit, as the Opposition have, to a 2030 zero carbon power system, the new gold standard of international leadership. That means ending the perverse ban on onshore wind and the blocking of solar, the cheapest and cleanest forms of power.

Secondly, we need to acknowledge the elephant in the room: fossil fuel. The COP26 President argued, unsuccessfully, that the conclusions of COP27 should include the phasing out of fossil fuel. If we extract all remaining reserves, we will blow way past 1.5° to 3° and more, but the Government are indulging at home in a dash for new fossil fuel licences, which will not even make a difference to bills, and they refuse to rule out a new coalmine in Cumbria. What kind of leadership is it if we tell others not to have new fossil fuel exploration while saying it is okay for us to do it here at home?

Thirdly, we need to demonstrate to the world that climate leadership means we will not only set stretching targets but meet them, yet the Climate Change Committee says we are off track and our net zero strategy has been found to be unlawful. What will the Government do to put that right?

Finally, the next year, leading up to the 2023 global stocktake, is the last real chance to save 1.5°. In years to come, every Government and politician will be judged on how they responded at this moment of jeopardy for the world. I urge the Government to show consistent leadership, to lower bills, to create jobs and to act before it is too late.

[Ms Ghani]

It is true that the COP26 President said 1.5° is on life support, but that does not mean COP27 is a failure. Significant progress was made, especially on providing support for the most vulnerable and increasing that support for the future. We have to keep fighting to keep 1.5° alive, but the deal in Egypt preserves the historic climate commitments agreed in last year’s Glasgow climate pact. It is important to recognise how much was achieved at Glasgow by the COP26 President.

Questions were raised on the further outcomes of COP, but I sometimes feel that, because so much has been negotiated, we do not appreciate how far we have come. During this presidency, there has been extensive lobbying for all countries to assess their 2030 nationally determined contributions to keep 1.5° in reach and to deliver on the Glasgow climate pact. More than 90% of the world’s GDP is now covered by net zero commitments, and 169 countries have put forward new or updated 2030 NDCs, resulting in reductions compared with previous NDCs. Of those, 29 new or updated NDCs have been submitted since COP26.

Full implementation of these NDCs is consistent with about 2.5° of warming, and full implementation of the net zero commitments could see warming as low as 1.7°. Fifty-four countries and parties have submitted long-term strategies so far, and this includes 10 new or updated submissions since COP26.

This remains a priority for the Government, and we not only have a Minister and a Department focused on climate and energy, but it is the Prime Minister’s focus, too. He came to the Dispatch Box just last week to make an extensive statement and to respond to colleagues’ questions. The legacy of COP26 will continue, and we will continue our leadership role, too.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to introduce a ban on hydraulic fracking for shale gas; and makes provision as set out in this Order:

(1) On Tuesday 29 November 2022:

(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply;

(b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;

(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);

(d) at 3.00 pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the Leader of the Opposition or another Member on his behalf to present a Bill concerning a ban on hydraulic fracking for shale gas of which notice of presentation has been given and immediately thereafter (notwithstanding the practice of the House) call a Member to move the motion that the Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;

(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.

(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill in the present Session of Parliament.

Timetable for the Bill on Tuesday 29 November 2022

(3)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Tuesday 29 November 2022 in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 5.00 pm.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 7.00 pm. Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Tuesday 29 November 2022

(4) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme Order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(5)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;

(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.

(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day

(8) If on any future sitting day any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.

(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—

(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;

(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;

(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.

(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:

(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;

(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—

“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

Reasons Committee

(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

Miscellaneous

(13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.

(14)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(15)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply.

(18)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies. (b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.

(19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—

(a) the Leader of the Opposition; and

(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition.

(20) This Order shall be a Standing Order of the House.

We have called this debate to provide the House with the right, which it should have, to make the decision on whether fracking should be allowed to restart across our country. The Business Secretary made it clear last week that he will not give the House a binding vote on the principle of the fracking ban, despite the Conservatives overturning their manifesto promise to keep the ban in place, despite the concern in all parts of this House and despite the concerns of the public.

If our motion is passed, it will mean that on 29 November, in six weeks’ time, the House will debate a fracking Bill. We have done this because we know what would have happened if we had had a simple Opposition Day motion on fracking. The Government would simply have abstained and ignored the vote, as they have done in votes on the windfall tax, fire and rehire, and the cut to universal credit, and as they will no doubt try to do with the motion that has just been passed. This is about faith in politics. The Government are seeking to break their manifesto promise without even getting the consent of this House. Today, we give all Members a chance to make this crucial decision on fracking.

Now let me go through the substantive arguments against fracking. There are four key questions for the House and the country. Will fracking make a difference to the price of energy? The answer is no. Is there categorical evidence that it is safe? The answer is no. Is it consistent with any remotely serious response to the climate crisis? The answer is no. Crucially, do people want it? The answer is no.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is another vital question to be asked? Since we will require gas until at least 2050—£1 trillion-worth of gas is to be imported—where are we going to get that gas from?

[Edward Miliband]

We can have a debate about North sea oil and gas, but fracking is a wholly different category. It is dangerous, it is expensive and it is not supported by the public.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I, like many of my colleagues, am not in favour of fracking and would like us to maintain our manifesto commitment. But he also knows that because he is playing party political games this afternoon, there is no way that we could vote for his motion. Is he more interested in genuinely opposing fracking or in playing party political games and trying to score points on this issue of great importance to our constituents?

[Edward Miliband]

I am glad we have a Conservative Member who wants to uphold their manifesto commitments. It is a refreshing change, I have to say. But here’s the thing: he should be directing his point to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was explicitly asked on the radio last week whether he would give the House a binding vote on this issue—I think the case for that is massively strengthened by the fact that the Conservative party is breaking its manifesto promise—and he said no. We are forcing this debate because it is the only way we can give the House a binding vote on this issue.

I want to talk about price. I know he is not exactly flavour of the month, but the recently departed Chancellor of the Exchequer said in February that

“even if we lifted the fracking moratorium tomorrow…no amount of shale gas from hundreds of wells dotted across rural England would be enough to lower the European price…private companies are not going to sell the shale gas they produce to UK consumers below the market price. They are not charities, after all.”

The Climate Change Committee says the same. Even the founder of Cuadrilla, Chris Cornelius, says:

“Even if the UK were to generate significant gas, we are not likely to see lower gas prices—any more than living next to a farm would mean paying less for milk.”

The reason is that prices are set in the European market, and the best evidence from the British geological survey is that fracking can meet less than 1% of European gas demand, and even that in a number of years’ time. Hence it will make no difference to price, and no amount of hand waving from the Secretary of State will change that fact.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman said at the Labour party conference on 24 September 2013:

“Of course, there could be a role”

for fracking

“if it can meet safety concerns”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I am very glad the hon. Lady has done her research about what I said on 24 September 2013, because so have I. [Interruption.] I think she should listen. This is what I said:

“I believe when George Osborne says fracking is a panacea he is totally misguided”,

and that the “notion” it could “solve Britain’s energy problems” was “just nonsense.”

I went to say that it needed to

“meet safety concerns and the needs of local residents”.

Since then—

[Maria Caulfield]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

No. Since then, it has been shown that fracking cannot meet safety concerns or the needs of local residents.

The second question I want to explore is whether fracking is safe, which has long been the subject of debate—a debate we led in 2013. The Conservative manifesto said:

“We will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely.”

It is important to go back to what happened in 2019 and the reasons why the Government introduced the moratorium. The then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom)—hardly a tofu-eating, woke lefty—said that

“it is clear that we cannot rule out future unacceptable impacts on the local community.”

It is not surprising that the right hon. Lady concluded that. Has the current Business Secretary read the official report from the time? I have, because I am a nerd. It said it could not rule out an event of 4.5 on the Richter scale, having already seen a 2.9 Richter scale event at Preston New Road. Let me tell the House what the impact of such an event would be by reading from the report. It would

“be widely felt…there could be widespread building damage in the study area, with cracked plasterwork affecting approximately 10 percent of buildings, more serious structural damage (of varying degrees) affecting 5.4 percent of buildings”—

including chimney failure. It continued:

“Some damage would be caused to buildings outside of the study area.”

That is why the Government banned fracking and said that they would not restart it unless the British Geological Survey said it was safe.

In the words of the then Business Secretary in April this year:

“Unless the latest scientific evidence demonstrates that shale gas extraction is safe, sustainable and of minimal disturbance to those living and working nearby, the pause in England will remain in place.”

No ifs, no buts. In its report published last month, the British Geological Survey said that it could not provide that assurance. Instead, it said that hydraulic fracturing

“can trigger earthquakes large enough to cause structural damage. These events were not predicted in advance of operations.”

Here is the key point for the whole House: there certainly is not the compelling evidence about safety that the Government promised would be the basis of any lifting of the ban. This is as clear an example of a broken manifesto promise as we are ever likely to see.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case against fracking with which I fully agree. Does he agree with me that, for all the potential downsides he has referenced, there is absolutely no guarantee that any shale gas extracted would be sold in the national domestic market? It would go to the highest bidder. There could be real downsides for our communities with no obvious uplift in supply.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman puts it incredibly well. That is why what the Government are coming up with is such a nonsense idea.

The Government are breaking not just a manifesto promise—no doubt they will say that the manifesto was drawn up before the Russian invasion of Ukraine—but a promise made by Ministers in April this year. The Business Secretary’s response is not to abide by the promise but to try to shift the goalposts. In his immortal words, which I hope MPs will take back to their constituents,

“tolerating a higher degree of risk and disturbance appears to us to be in the national interest”—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 40WS.]

I think that could be a description of the Government. This is a matter of trust. How can communities across this country trust a Government who say one thing categorically in their manifesto, repeat it in April, and then go back on their word with no mandate from the British people?

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend talked about the Government imposing the ban because of the risk of disturbance to local communities. There was a proposal to frack in Marsh Lane, which happens to be in a neighbouring constituency—that of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who I think has responsibility for planning and will perhaps deal with fracking. There would be dozens, if not hundreds of lorry movements a day down rural lanes—that is what “disturbance” means—and lots of wells drilled that would despoil the local environment. That is the reality of fracking, which every Conservative Member should think about if they are prepared to accept fracking in their local areas.

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well and I agree.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. In terms of trust, he will know that the Government have set up a new consultation to determine what public consent is. Does he agree that it is a monstrous waste of time and money to try to determine something that does not exist? There is no local consent for this; plenty of Government Members do not actually want it. If the Government really want to know what consent is, why do they not have a general election?

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Lady makes her point well and anticipates the issues that I will come on to. Fracking will not make a difference to bills, we cannot be assured of its safety, and it is a disastrous response to the climate crisis.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

No, I will not give way for the moment.

The decision on fracking is potentially environmentally damaging, with emissions from fracking up to 50% higher than those from conventional gas. If every country follows the lead that the Business Secretary suggests by extracting every last drop of their fossil fuel reserves, global temperatures will rise by more than 3° C, which will spell catastrophe for our children and grandchildren. That should be patently obvious to anyone, not least the person in charge of fighting the climate crisis.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

No, I will not. I want to make some progress, because many hon. Members want to speak.

On the crucial issue of what the public think, I suggest that the Business Secretary looks at the surveys conducted by his own Department. Some 78% of the public support onshore wind, 83% support tidal and offshore wind, and 87% support solar, but just 17% support fracking. Suddenly, in a sign of desperation about how grossly unpopular and unwanted the policy is, the Government say that they want to design a system of local consent.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I will not give way for the moment.

I do not know why the Business Secretary wants further evidence about what communities think. We already have the answer from the public: fracking is deeply unpopular and communities do not want it. Indeed, Fylde Council, which is controlled by his party and at the centre of the main UK experiment in fracking, just passed a unanimous motion saying that the ban should remain and that he should honour the manifesto commitment.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend knows how the planning system works as well as I do. Councils can refuse planning permission and support their local communities, but fracking companies have the ability to appeal that decision to the Planning Inspectorate, for which, as he knows, public opinion is not a material planning consideration. Is this not just smoke and mirrors to get these unpopular proposals past those on the Tory Benches, when everybody knows that public opinion counts for nothing?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there are more weasel words in relation to local consent. I give way to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who has been desperate to get in.

[Mark Fletcher]

I find myself in strange agreement with many of the arguments being made from the Opposition Dispatch Box, but will the right hon. Gentleman be clear that the vote that we are having tonight is on not banning fracking, but a procedural matter for the House of Commons? Will he be truthful to the public about what we are voting on tonight?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

We are voting on our proposal to bring in a Bill to ban fracking. I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a large amount of respect, that we are not going to get a vote on the principle of fracking, because the Business Secretary has said that. I know that the hon. Gentleman is against fracking, so this is his chance to stand up for his constituents and say no to fracking.

I will say more about the issue of consent and the Government’s amendment, and I will say something to the House as a whole and to Conservative Back Benchers, which goes to the hon. Gentleman’s point. They should not fall for the Government’s weasel words in this debate. The way to stop fracking is to vote for our motion. If they do not, their constituents will know that they had the chance to stop fracking and refused to do so.

We now discover, however, that that is not all they will be voting for tonight, because the genius minds of the Government Whips Office are now seeking to turn a vote on this important issue into a vote of confidence in the current Prime Minister. Let us picture the scene: the Government Whips are confronted with a vote on fracking, one of the least popular causes in the country, with the Government falling apart around them. They could decide to retreat, but that would be yet another U-turn. They could concede a vote of this House on the fracking ban, but they would lose and fracking would be dead.

Then, at the 11th hour, one galaxy brain says that the way to force the vote through is to make it a vote on not just one of the most unpopular causes in the country—fracking—but the most unpopular cause in the country: the current Prime Minister. We might call it the “frack me or sack me” strategy.

In normal times, such an idiotic idea would have been dismissed out of hand, but these are not normal times. The Government see this as their leaky life raft, but I say to the House and to Conservative Members that they all know the Prime Minister will be gone in a matter of weeks, if not days, if not hours, and they know fracking will go with her, so why defend the indefensible? Why not be on the right side of history and their constituents?

Just like this Government, fracking is a dangerous, extreme idea that the British people do not support, and I appeal to all Members of the House, particularly Conservative Members, to have the courage of their convictions. Today is a day when they can put their constituents before their party and vote to give this House the decision on a fracking ban. It is time to consign fracking to the dustbin of history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

indicated dissent.

[Lee Anderson]

The shadow Secretary of State can very well shake his head. What I say to him is, please come to a place like Ashfield. I know you don’t visit your own constituency very often, but come to a place like Ashfield and talk to some real people.

That’s me done, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Edward Miliband]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will not give way. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is getting over-excited. He has described himself as a nerd—accurately, of course. Perhaps he should have spent more time looking at parliamentary procedure.

I am proud to say that this Government have led the way in reducing emissions and moving towards net zero. When the right hon. Gentleman left power in 2010, not only was there that note that said there was no money left, but less than 7% of our electricity—around 6.8%—came from renewables. It is the Conservative party that has delivered the green revolution and will continue to do so. That means that more than 40%—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, are they allowed to maintain this ridiculous stunt? It is bad enough—

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are investing. Near both our constituencies, we have seen the transformation—

[Edward Miliband]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

May I at least answer this without being permanently harassed by the right hon. Gentleman, who should learn to sit? My hon. Friend has seen the transformation of the whole economics of offshore wind. He has seen this Government put in place the contracts for difference, which are being copied all around the world.

[Edward Miliband]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I feel as though if I do not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, he may suffer some serious medical emergency.

[Edward Miliband]

For the guidance of the House, the Minister said something very important from the Dispatch Box: he said that this is not a confidence motion. I think Conservative Members want to know, because if he confirms that statement, they can vote for our motion in the safe knowledge that they can be confident in the current Prime Minister. Will he confirm that?

Energy Prices Bill

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I acknowledge the words of the Secretary of State. This is important legislation to get onto the statute book. I will make one point: there are many issues still to be resolved in secondary legislation, and I hope and expect—I know from our conversations that he will take this seriously—that there will be co-operation on those issues.

Energy Prices Bill

Ed Miliband Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to be as brief as I can to let as many people as possible speak in this debate.

Let me start by saying that Labour called for support for families and businesses in August through an energy price freeze, so we will support the passage of the Bill. I thank the Secretary of State for the conversations we have had on the Bill. This is an incredibly serious issue for families and businesses across the country.

I have to say, before I get into the detail, what a shambles this Government are. We are debating what they describe as their landmark Bill for a two-year price guarantee. It was published only last Wednesday and it has already been shredded by the Chancellor this morning. Last Wednesday, Members were in the House for Prime Minister’s questions. The Prime Minister went on and on about her decisive action of a two-year guarantee. She even derided the Opposition’s approach of a six-month freeze, seeking to spread to fear about what would happen in March, and now the Government have adopted our proposal. Never mind a vision; never mind a plan for the years ahead—this Government cannot even give us a plan for the coming week. They are truly in office but not in power. This matters, because families and businesses need to be able to plan.

I want to talk about the substantive action in the Bill and the way that the revenue to pay for it is raised, because there are important issues for the House. On the substantive action, there is a contrast with our six-month package. That was a real freeze, not a rise in bills, and £129 for millions of families across the country is significant. That even takes account of the £400. I worry about off-grid households, which we will talk about in Committee. I understand the basis of the Secretary of State’s argument. Our costed package provided £1,000 to help off-grid households. The Bill provides just a tenth of the support, and even with the Government’s measures, the University of York estimates that more than 10 million families will be in fuel poverty, so we will want to debate those issues during the Bill’s passage.

I will focus my remarks on the second set of issues relating to the way that funding for the Bill is provided, which is important. Our argument five weeks ago, when the Government announced their energy price guarantee, was that they should do everything they could to find some of the money for this intervention from the energy companies that are making enormous profits. Anyone who heard the Business Secretary’s dulcet tones on the radio last week will have heard him say that there is no windfall tax in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) described it as a “surrogate windfall tax”, which is a new invention. However, page 3 of the Bill’s explanatory notes states:

“The Bill aims to do the following…Require certain generators currently receiving supernormal revenues to make a payment to a third party…for purposes of lowering the cost of electricity for consumers, or to meet expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State”.

Payments on the basis of windfalls received to lower the cost of electricity for consumers, or to meet expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—it sounds like a windfall tax. It works like a windfall tax. It talks like a windfall tax. It is a windfall tax.

I want to hear during this debate that the Government will definitely use the powers to have a windfall tax that are in clause 16. That matters, because while we set out a clear plan for a windfall tax, the truth is that the Government, having resisted a windfall tax tooth and nail, have now taken the broadest and most ill-defined powers imaginable. Companies and the public have no idea from the Bill about the size of the levy, how much it will raise and how there will be fairness with the fossil fuel windfall tax that the previous Chancellor announced —to remind the House, that was four Chancellors ago, in May this year.

We will probe two issues that go to the question of whether we will raise sufficient resources from the windfall tax, or “surrogate windfall tax”, in the Bill. First, according to their press release, the Government will start the windfall tax on electricity generators only in 2023. Those months of delay matter, because it will mean billions in extraordinary profits being left—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Secretary of State is shaking his head. This is a very important point: that will leave billions of pounds of extraordinary profits with the companies, and it means that the British people will be forced to foot billions more of the bill for energy price support. If having a windfall tax is the right thing to do, why not have it from the date of the intervention in September? I am very happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman so he can explain why he is not doing that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very happy to explain. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the energy companies have sold their electricity forward, and therefore the profit is not accruing on the prices at which they have sold it forward.

[Edward Miliband]

That would mean that there are no windfalls, so why is the Secretary of State having a special payment made by the energy companies anyway? That makes no sense at all. We will definitely want to probe that during the debate. How can it possibly all have been sold forward, as he says? So he is saying that the energy companies are currently making no windfalls. That does rather prompt the question: why are they going to have to make special payments, if it has all been sold forward and they are making no windfall profits?

Secondly, I want to talk about the question of the level playing field in what is happening to the fossil fuel companies and to the electricity generators. The previous Chancellor but one—I think that is right—introduced a super-deduction for fossil fuel companies as part of his windfall tax. That means that for every pound invested in oil and gas and fracking, companies get 91p back. But to be clear: that is not available to renewables, nuclear or other zero-carbon technology. That is an absurd tilting of the playing field towards fossil fuels and against investments in cheap, home-grown, clean power, and that is absolutely indefensible. It will not reduce bills. We will want to use the Bill as best we can, given the constraints of its scope, to debate the merits of that provision. I urge the House to support attempts to eliminate that preposterous loophole.

In the time I have left, let me deal with the wider questions about the Bill. We will continue to be in this position unless we learn the proper lessons from this crisis. Those lessons are not some extreme fringe idea that fracking, which will not lower bills, is somehow the answer to the problems that we face. The answer is a clean sprint for clean energy—for solar, wind, nuclear as part of that and energy efficiency all together.

The other day, the Secretary of State wrote an article in The Guardian, in which he said, “Dear Guardian reader”:

“I can assure Guardian readers that I am not a ‘green energy sceptic’.”

Let him prove it. He is for fracking, which will not lower bills and is dangerous. His colleague, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is seeking to block solar energy worth 34 GW—the equivalent of 10 nuclear power stations. That is not some whim of the DEFRA Secretary, but an instruction from the Prime Minister, who said that she does not like the look of solar panels. If the Business Secretary wants to convince people that he understands the stakes and what is necessary to get out of this crisis, he needs to make a proper sprint for green energy.

The other thing that the Business Secretary needs to do—we will again discuss this during the passage of the Bill, and I think he may agree with this—is set a timetable for the proper de-linking of electricity and gas prices. We suggest that we should set a two-year timetable in the Bill for that to happen.

Let me end by saying that the Bill is necessary, because we need support to be put on the statute book, but the truth about the Government is that they are lurching from U-turn to U-turn, and they cannot provide the country with the strategic direction that it needs to get out of the crisis. The truth is that, day by day, they are showing that they are out of ideas, out of time, and now, in the national interest, they should be out of power, too.

Shale Gas Extraction

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement regarding the lifting of the moratorium on shale gas extraction.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

What a pleasure it is to be continuing on this theme—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking his urgent question. I am glad to be able to announce that the moratorium on the extraction of shale gas is being lifted, and a statement about that has been laid before the House.

As I set out in the previous urgent question, it is important that we use all available sources of fuel within this country. It is more environmentally friendly to use our own sources of fuel than to extract them in other countries and transport them here at great cost, both financially and in terms of carbon. It is therefore something we need to revisit, and we need to revisit the seismic limits to ensure that shale gas extraction can be done in an effective and efficient way.

[Edward Miliband]

This is obviously a case of “the dog ate my homework”, and it is hardly surprising. Let us start by taking the Secretary of State’s excuse for lifting the fracking ban—that it will make a difference to the energy bills crisis. It will not, because gas is sold on the international market. The current Chancellor said so in February of this year:

“No amount of shale gas…would be enough to lower the European price”

of gas. In an article published yesterday, even the founder of Cuadrilla said that the Secretary of State is wrong. First, why does he not admit the truth that anyone who knows anything about this subject says his claim that fracking will cut bills is nonsense?

Next, let us come to safety. The 2019 manifesto, on which the Secretary of State and every Conservative Member stood, said:

“We will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely.”

They are lifting the ban, but they cannot supply the evidence, and the British Geological Survey report published today certainly does not do it. So in the absence of the evidence, his approach is to change the safety limits. He says in his written statement laid before this House that

“tolerating a higher degree of risk and disturbance appears to us to be in the national interest”.

I look forward to him and his colleagues explaining his charter for earthquakes to the people of Lancashire, Yorkshire, the midlands, Sussex, Dorset and, indeed, Somerset who will be part of his dangerous experiment. Let me tell the Conservatives that we will hang this broken promise round their necks in every part of the country between now and the next general election.

The Conservative manifesto also said:

“Having listened to local communities, we have ruled out changes to the planning system.”

Does the Secretary of State stand by that promise, and how will he abide by the Prime Minister’s commitment to local consent? The truth is that he does not understand that we cannot escape a fossil fuels crisis by doubling down on fossil fuels. Renewables are today nine times cheaper than gas. The only way to cut energy bills and have energy security is with zero-carbon home-grown power, including onshore wind and solar, which his wing of the Conservative party hates and he continues to block. For communities in every part of our country, today shows that they can never trust a word this Government say again, and he has shown he is willing to break his promises to support dangerous fringe ideas that put the interests of fossil fuel companies above those of the British people.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There was plenty of energy in that, Mr Speaker, but it was, I am afraid, more sound and fury that signifies nothing. We know that shale gas is safe. It is safe in the United States, where it has been one of the biggest contributors to the decline in carbon emissions of any activity that has gone on in that country. We know, even if Labour Members wish to ignore it, that seismic activity of 2.5 and below on the Richter scale takes place millions of times a year across the world. Our standards for ground-level movements for construction work are double those that have ever been achieved by any shale gas exploration in this country. There is a huge margin over what we allow for building work against what has actually happened in terms of shale gas. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to deny the ordinary rules of supply and demand. He ought to be aware that when we increase supply and demand remains steady, that has an effect on pricing, and pricing is always set at the margin. The price of any commodity is set by the final user who demands that commodity. If supply exceeds demand prices fall, and any increase in supply helps to reduce costs.

But there is another point. We have—all of us— constituents with gas boilers, and we are going to have them for many years to come. Do we really want them to be dependent on strange dictatorships that wage war in this world, or do we want to have our own security, and our own supplies? Do we want to maximise what we receive from the North sea and from underneath our feet? This seems to me to be just good common sense. It is safe, it is shown to be safe, and the scare stories have been disproved time and again. The hysteria about seismic activity fails to understand that the Richter scale is a logarithmic scale. It seems to think it is a straight arithmetic scale, which of course it is not. Bringing on the supply will bring us cheaper energy, which we need, and that will help our constituents. It secures our supply, which will ensure that our businesses can continue to operate whatever the weather. This is of such importance, and it is sheer Ludditery that opposes it.

Energy Security Strategy

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but I have to tell him that after all the hype and all the promises, his energy relaunch fails to live up remotely to the scale of the crisis that families are facing. The Government have already failed to deliver the immediate measures needed to help millions of families with their energy bills this year, and they now have an energy security strategy that has rejected the measures that could have made the most difference in the years ahead. It fails to seize the moment on the two most elementary tests of any decent green energy sprint—that is, going all-in on the cheapest forms of home-grown power, such as onshore wind, which remarkably, was not even mentioned in his statement, and finally delivering on the biggest no-brainer when it comes to an energy strategy: energy efficiency.

Hon Members do not need to take my word for it. We know from all the briefings and interviews that the Secretary of State gave before the relaunch that he has failed to deliver what he wanted. We know that he wanted a hard target to double onshore wind by 2030 and to treble it by 2035, because we have the earlier version of the document in which there were those targets. The Secretary of State was right because the ban on onshore wind that the Government introduced in 2015 has driven up bills for consumers. What did he say 10 days before the relaunch? He said that he wanted to see a major “acceleration” in onshore wind. The Prime Minister was said to be “horrified” at the delays, but when we got the document, we saw that there was no target, no plan and more imports and higher bills as a result of his failure. Perhaps he can tell us what the nasty accident was that befell the earlier version of his strategy.

On solar, let us be clear that the Government destroyed the solar industry with their decisions in 2015, abolishing the feed-in tariff. In this document, we see weak and vague language—it is even weaker, the House will be interested to know, than in the original version of the document, which is pretty weak in itself. Will the Secretary of State explain why there is no firm target for 2030 and a retreat on large-scale solar?

Let us take energy efficiency next, the biggest failure of all. We know that the Secretary of State wanted extra resources for energy efficiency, because he helpfully briefed the media to that effect. He was right, because that would immediately cut bills, imports and fuel poverty, but again, he failed. There is not a penny more for energy efficiency in this document. Even the Secretary of State’s Minister, Lord Callanan—we have to admire his candour—said on the day:

“It would have been good to go further but, regrettably, that was not possible in this case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 2196.]

Will the Secretary of State tell us why the Government are failing to deliver when the economic, social and climate case is so overwhelming?

The Government’s failures on onshore wind, solar and energy efficiency matter because they are not just the cheapest and cleanest responses to the crisis that we face, but the quickest to deliver. That is why E.ON, the energy company, said of the strategy, that

“there is little in today’s announcement that will deliver…this decade, let alone this year.”

Why? Because the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister caved in to Back Benchers who dislike green energy and a Chancellor who refuses to make the green investments that the country needs. They cannot deliver a green energy sprint because they face both ways on green energy and simply will not make the public investment that we need.

On the other elements of the strategy, we support more ambition on hydrogen and offshore wind. On the latter, however, there are real questions about the investment required in the grid; perhaps the Secretary of State will respond to that point.

On new nuclear, the last Labour Government identified a whole series of sites for new nuclear. The Government have had 12 years in power and they have not completed a single power station.

Of course, the North sea has a role to play in the transition, but will the Secretary of State explain how maximising North sea oil and gas is consistent with all the advice from the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on limiting global warming to 1.5°?

On fracking, which the Secretary of State was also too embarrassed to mention, why commission another review rather than having the courage to say out loud what he believes: that fracking is outdated, will make no difference to prices and is unsafe, unpopular and should have no part in our future energy system?

In conclusion, the truth is that this cobbled-together energy relaunch does nothing on the cost of living and fails to deliver the green sprint that we needed. When it comes to the solutions to energy security, energy bills and the climate crisis, the Secretary of State has shown once again that the Government cannot deliver what the national interest demands.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am pleased, in this Easter season, when Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, that the right hon. Gentleman is back in his place. I thought that he had disappeared for a bit, but it is very good to see him again spinning out the same lines.

Let me deal with some of his accusations. There is plenty about onshore wind in the strategy. The one thing that we say about onshore wind—unlike the right hon. Gentleman’s position—is that it has to be pursued in the context of local community support. We have always had that position and have not moved away from it. People also say, “What about the energy efficiency measures?” He will remember that we had a whole document at the end of last year devoted to energy efficiency—it was called the heat and buildings strategy. He and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) kept asking month after month, “When will the heat and buildings strategy come out?” It did come out and it addressed precisely the energy efficiency issues that he wished it to.

On nuclear—this is the last thing I will say about the remarks from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—his attempt to pretend that the last Labour Government somehow made us more secure on nuclear is laughable. That did not happen. They were notorious for doing nothing to promote the nuclear industry. They were rather like our Scottish National party friends, who are at least honest about their position—they do not want nuclear. I am still not sure what he believes about nuclear, but we are driving forward nuclear and we are delighted to make it the centrepoint of our strategy.

Shale Gas Production

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement, and I know he has a long-standing interest in energy on a number of fronts. I commend him for his continuing interest.

Nothing has changed in Government policy relating to fracking and shale gas. On the international crisis, my hon. Friend says the west is addicted to Russian hydrocarbons, but I would say that the UK is not. Last year we imported 4%, but typically we get less than 3% of our gas from Russia. The figures for oil are higher, but they are nothing like the eyewatering percentages we see among our European friends and partners.

On the holes in Preston New Road, Lancashire, the Oil and Gas Authority—the independent regulator—proactively approached Cuadrilla as recently as this week to ask whether it will apply for an extension. However, Cuadrilla has not made a straightforward application to do so. As with any licensee, Cuadrilla can apply for a straightforward extension from the Oil and Gas Authority if it wants to extend the deadline.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and I met the Oil and Gas Authority today, and it is ready to consider Cuadrilla’s letter and potential application. The Government hope the regulator would consider it favourably.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this urgent question. He is right to try to smoke out the Government’s position, and it is no wonder he is confused—I think he will remain confused after the Minister’s reply.

Let us be clear that the Government placed a moratorium on fracking because they said it is dangerous and they could not rule out

“unacceptable impacts on the local community.”

The Business Secretary said in 2020 that “fracking is over,” and just a few days ago he wrote

“it would come at a high cost to communities and our precious countryside”.

Yet last Wednesday, just three days later, the same Business Secretary said

“the Government are open to the idea.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 355.]

Yesterday, at Chatham House, the Minister ruled it out. The Government are all over the place.

I will ask some questions, because this issue does matter. It is about our energy security, it is about communities that are deeply worried about the impact of fracking, and it is about the climate crisis. Has the Minister or his Department seen any scientific evidence since the 2019 moratorium that suggests fracking might not be dangerous and might be safe? If he does not have any evidence, why is he approaching the Oil and Gas Authority to ask it not to concrete over the wells, which was the original decision? If he does not think fracking is safe, why is he sowing uncertainty in communities across our country? If he does not have any evidence, will he assure the House that no review of fracking—no nods, no winks and no nudges—will be announced in the relaunch of the Government’s energy strategy? Clarity on this matters.

Finally, would it not be the best thing that the Government can do to guarantee energy security—the Minister should be clear about this—to have a green energy sprint by ending the onshore wind moratorium, ending the objection to solar power, embracing tidal power, moving forward with nuclear and having a properly funded national energy efficiency programme?

[Greg Hands]

I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box. He says he is confused, but I have been absolutely clear that Government policy is unchanged from the 2019 manifesto. I am not sure what he finds confusing about Government policy being unchanged.

We did not put our 2019 manifesto on an Ed stone, but it is available online for anybody to see the manifesto pledges on which all Conservative Members ran. Government policy is unchanged, with or without an Ed stone. The right hon. Gentleman says we are sowing uncertainty. No, we have given absolute certainty. Government policy is unchanged from the pause announced in December 2019. There is no review. This is a science-led policy, and support from local communities would be needed if there were to be a change.

Finally, we heard about the “green energy sprint”, which is extraordinary. Since the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in 2010, we have increased the proportion of our electricity generation coming from renewables from 7% to 43%. In any normal terms, that would be a sprint, but it is also a marathon, in the sense that we have done that over 12 years. It has been almost a “sextupling” of the amount of energy coming from our renewables since he was in office. He talks about nuclear, but he will also remember the 1997 Labour manifesto, which said that Labour saw “no economic case” for new nuclear power stations. He has the cheek to come to the Dispatch Box today to urge that we get on with nuclear. The Government are getting on with nuclear and with renewables, doing exactly the green energy sprint that he has suggested.

Russian Oil Import Ban

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We are united against Russian aggression. We stand together in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Let me echo his admiration for President Zelensky, whose bravery and eloquence yesterday were extraordinary and inspiring.

On the Secretary of State’s immediate decisions, we know that Putin’s war machine is being funded by oil and gas, which is why it is right that every country does what it can to isolate the regime, and that every company does so too. We fully support the Government’s decision to ban oil imports, which is a welcome step. It is also right to work with companies and unions on how we implement that policy. What assessment has he made of the impact of the ban on petrol and diesel prices?

We also support the Secretary of State’s decision to seek ways of ridding ourselves of Russian gas imports. On the wider energy security context, it is essential that we learn the right lessons from this crisis. Although 50% of our gas comes from the North sea and only 4% from Russia, we pay the same price for our own gas as for that which we import because we operate in an integrated gas market, so we are absolutely exposed to these rocketing wholesale gas prices, which are currently up 100% on the month and 800% on the year.

Therefore, the right lesson to learn is surely that we have to go much further and faster in developing home-grown zero-carbon power, including renewables and nuclear, which can free us from the whims of autocrats and dictators who can use fossil fuels as a geopolitical weapon. Does the Secretary of State agree this is the right lesson and that policy will need to change? In particular, does he agree that we should finally end the effective moratorium on onshore wind in the planning regulations, which since 2015 has denied us power each and every year equivalent to our gas imports from Russia? Does he agree that we should ramp up our offshore wind so we go well beyond 40 GW, and that it is time to finally get serious about energy efficiency—the best way of cutting energy demand and an area in which the Government have not succeeded in past years?

There needs to be a phased transition in the North sea, but will the Secretary of State now clarify the Government’s position on fracking? Will he confirm that the moratorium that was put in place will remain in place—no ifs, no buts—as fracking would not make any difference to the prices consumers pay, is dangerous and would take decades to come on stream? [Hon. Members: “No!”] They do not agree with me. I have a position against fracking; they support fracking. We would love to know what the Secretary of State and the Government think and I am sure they would, too.

Let me ask the Secretary of State about the cost of living crisis facing families, arising from what is happening to oil and gas prices. We have consistently warned the Government that their measures were wholly inadequate to address the rise in energy bills. Will he undertake to tell the Chancellor that, in his spring statement, he must come back with much more help for both families and businesses?

We are united in our support for the people of Ukraine. We will support the Government in everything they do that can cut off support for the evil and barbaric Putin regime, and we urge the Government to learn the right lessons for our country from this crisis, so we can achieve both energy security and energy sovereignty.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

In his customary way, the right hon. Gentleman raised a large number of questions, the majority of which I hope to deal with. He spoke against Putin’s barbaric invasion and completely illegal actions. I am very pleased that he reflects our sentiments and that we have a mutual interest in making sure that Putin fails.

As far as the cost of living is concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an extensive intervention, and it is wrong for Opposition politicians to say that the price cap that will be set in August will necessarily be higher than it is today. We simply do not know. As the right hon. Gentleman understands, the price cap will be set retrospectively, looking at the average price. It may well be higher, but there are circumstances in which it will not increase as much as he imagines. As is always the case, we take an ongoing approach to looking at the price cap. We speak to Ofgem all the time and Ofgem is engaged in work on how the price cap is calculated.

I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is keen to support investment in the North sea, making sure that gas is a key transition fuel, something that many people on the Opposition Benches may disagree with. He is right to stress an increased focus on renewables and nuclear power—we are absolutely at one in our agreement on that.

Storm Eunice

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I join him in sending my condolences to the families of the victims who tragically died during Storm Eunice, and I express my sympathy to all those who have been affected by the storms. Many families have endured real hardship in these past few days, being without power for an extended period. I also know, including from my own constituency, that many others are facing an anxious time with the threat of flooding from Storm Franklin. My thoughts are with them, too.

I also join the Secretary of State in praising all the engineers, network staff and emergency service staff who have done such an important job in incredibly difficult circumstances over the past few days, as well as local authorities, which have also played an important role in the emergency response.

On the substance of the statement, first, the most important priority is to reconnect those who are still without power. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about people being reconnected by Wednesday at the latest, and I trust that he will, as he says, hold all the companies to account in mobilising all their resources across the country to make sure this happens.

Secondly, on vulnerable households, in its interim review of the response to Storm Arwen last November, BEIS noted confusion of roles and responsibilities for vulnerable customers and communities that were cut off. The Secretary of State says the arrangements are working better, and I am glad that lessons have been learned. Can he tell us how he is monitoring that and is assured of it?

Thirdly, there were unacceptable delays in the networks’ compensation payments after Storm Arwen, with 10,000 customers having not been compensated six weeks after the storm. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure speedy payments on this occasion?

Fourthly, these events raise longer-term issues. Scientists tell us that we cannot necessarily attribute the ferocity of Storm Eunice to climate change, but we know that we face more intense and frequent extreme weather as a result of the climate crisis, so again it throws up the question of our resilience and security as a country.

After the storms in 2013, there was a clear sense of the vulnerabilities of the overhead power network and agreement that the energy networks would act. In its interim report on Storm Arwen this month, Ofgem said again that it will review the costs and benefits of the resilience of overhead lines, and the Climate Change Committee has highlighted climate risks to the power system. Does the Secretary of State agree that events this winter demonstrate the need to give greater priority to and, indeed, investment in the resilience of our power network?

More generally, the Climate Change Committee said in its five-year progress report last summer that adaptation is

“under-resourced, underfunded and often ignored.”

Does the Secretary of State agree that these storms are yet another wake-up call about the need for a proper national resilience plan that covers our power lines, flood defences and critical infrastructure?

The truth is that, as a country, we face significant threats from extreme weather in the years ahead. Today we should acknowledge the important work done in response to this crisis, but the lesson has been demonstrated yet again that we owe people the long-term planning and investment to give them all the protection we can.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will be surprised that I am in a measure of agreement with him. He is absolutely right to warn that extreme weather events could be—I am not saying they will be—a feature of our landscape and climate. As a constituency MP, I remember the floods of 2013-14 and the devastation they caused.

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I launched a review of Storm Arwen, and we have learned many lessons from the interim report. We are committed to conversing with colleagues across Government on a more integrated plan. I am grateful to him for highlighting the extreme weather conditions that many of us may well face in the future.