Clean Energy Superpower Mission
Ed Miliband Excerpts(4 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Edward Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. This Government were elected two weeks ago. Since then, we have lifted the onshore wind ban in England, which had been in place since 2015; consented more than 1.3 GW of solar projects, powering the equivalent of almost 400,000 homes; established the 2030 mission control centre in my Department under Chris Stark to plan and deliver our mission; and established under the Chancellor a national wealth fund to create good clean energy jobs across our country. We are just getting started.
We are moving at this pace for one overriding reason: the urgency of the challenges we face. We have the challenge of our energy insecurity, laid bare by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and paid for by the British people in the worst cost of living crisis in generations. We have the challenge of an economy that does not work for working people, with too few good jobs at decent wages. We have the challenge of the climate crisis—not a future threat, but a present reality. This Government have a driving philosophy: homegrown clean energy can help us tackle all those challenges, including crucially energy security. Today the Climate Change Committee publishes its progress report to Parliament. I thank the interim chair Piers Forster and the interim chief executive James Richardson for their excellent work.
The Committee says in its report:
“British-based renewable energy is the cheapest and fastest way to reduce vulnerability to volatile global fossil fuel markets. The faster we get off fossil fuels, the more secure we become.”
It is right. That is why making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government, delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy.
Today, the committee’s report also lays bare the truth about the last Government. Despite achievements, which I am happy to acknowledge, the report is coruscating about the lurch of recent years. It says that
“last year…the previous Government signalled a slowing of pace and reversed or delayed key policies.”
It goes on:
“the…announcements were given with the justification that they will make the transition more affordable for people, but with no evidence backing this claim.”
It concludes that
“the country is not on track”
to hit our 2030 international target of 68% emissions reductions. Indeed, it says:
“Our assessment is that only a third of the emissions reductions required...are currently covered by credible plans.”
That is our inheritance for a target to be achieved in just five years.
I will respond formally to the committee in the autumn and, as part of that, I have asked my Department to provide me with a thorough analysis of its findings, but I can tell the House today that we will hold fast to our 2030 clean power mission and our nationally determined contribution, because it is the right thing to do for our country.
Today, I set out our next steps. First, onshore wind is one of the cheapest sources of power that we have. To those in the House who claimed they were protecting communities with the onshore wind ban, let us be clear: they have undermined our energy security and set back the fight against the climate crisis. That is why in the first 72 hours of this Government we lifted the ban, which today I confirm formally to the House. Under the onshore wind ban, the pipeline of projects in England shrank by 90%.
Over a year ago, the last Government’s net zero tsar Chris Skidmore, whom I pay tribute to, made a recommendation of an onshore wind taskforce to drive forward projects. The last Government ignored it; we will implement it. The taskforce will work with developers to rebuild the pipeline of projects.
Secondly, solar power is among the cheapest forms of power that we have. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I are determined that we have a rooftop revolution. We must use the rooftops of our country for solar far better than we do at the moment. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister and I are clear that rooftop solar should play an important role, where appropriate, as part of the future standards for homes and buildings. The solar road map—we have been waiting for it for 18 months—will be published soon, with greater ambition. I have reconvened the solar taskforce to deliver that objective.
As we face up to the challenge of the energy transition, we must also plan for how we use land in this country to ensure a proper balance between food security, nature preservation and clean energy. After dither and delay under the previous Government, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary will publish a land use framework working in tandem with our spatial energy plan.
I also assure the House that communities will continue to have a say on any proposals in their area. It is important for this Government that where communities host clean energy infrastructure, they should directly benefit from it. But we will not carry on with a position where the clean energy we need does not get built and the British people pay the price.
Credible external estimates suggest that ground-mounted solar used just 0.1% of our land in 2022. The biggest threat to nature and food security and to our rural communities is not solar panels or onshore wind; it is the climate crisis, which threatens our best farmland, food production and the livelihoods of farmers. The Government will proceed not on the basis of myth and false information, but on evidence. Every time, the previous Government ducked, delayed and denied the difficult decisions needed for clean energy, that made us less secure, raised bills and undermined climate action. No more.
Thirdly, offshore wind will be the backbone of our clean energy mission. Allocation round 5, overseen by the last Government, was a catastrophe for the industry, with no offshore wind contracts awarded. The upcoming round is a critical test. We will get this crucial industry back on its feet. By the beginning of August, I will report back on the budget for AR6 to ensure that as much clean, home-grown energy as possible gets built while ensuring value for money.
Our fourth step is the Great British Energy Bill announced in the Gracious Speech. I am extremely proud that this is the first Bill for decades that will enable us to establish a UK-wide publicly owned energy generation company. The truth is that there is already widespread public ownership of energy in Britain, but by foreign Governments. We have offshore wind farms in the UK owned by the Governments of Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden through state-owned companies. Those Governments know that a publicly owned national champion is part of a modern industrial strategy and generates a return for taxpayers, crowding in, not crowding out, private investment. For too long, Britain has opted out and lost out. Today, we say: no more.
Great British Energy, headquartered in Scotland, will invest in home-grown clean energy to increase our energy independence, create good jobs with strong trade unions and tackle the climate crisis. It will invest in technologies such as nuclear, offshore wind, tidal, hydrogen and carbon capture, and ensure a just transition for our oil and gas communities. GB Energy will also oversee the biggest expansion of community energy in British history through our local power plan. The Government believe in the ownership of British assets by the British people, for the benefit of the British people. Following the people’s verdict at the general election, I hope that this is a patriotic mission that the whole House can get behind.
I have seen 19 years of debates on climate and energy in this House. The clean energy transition represents the biggest transformation of our economy for 200 years, and it is massively challenging. We have been at our best as a country, and as a House, when we have worked together for the sake of the national interest. I pay tribute to people of all parties who have been champions of this agenda over the past 14 years: Baroness May, who legislated for net zero; the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who oversaw the growth of offshore wind; Caroline Lucas; and on the Labour Benches, my friend Alan Whitehead.
One of my early decisions was to re-establish the role of the Secretary of State as the lead climate negotiator in my Department, because we can only protect future generations with strong action at home and leadership abroad. Next week in London I will host the President of this year’s COP29 in Azerbaijan. He will be joined by the Presidents of COP28 and COP30. I have invited the President of COP 26, Lord Sharma, who presided with such distinction, to join our discussions. This is a sign of how I intend to go on—working with people of all parties and none in this national endeavour. That is what the British people have a right to expect of us. As the Prime Minister rightly says, “Country first, party second.” That is more true on this issue than any other. This Government will act at pace and work with anyone who shares our mission. I commend this statement to the House.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I would like to put on the record my disappointment not to get the statement in good time. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will want to provide us with the same courtesy that we tried to provide him when we were in government. That being said, I congratulate him on his return to government. I was sad not to see more of him during the election campaign, particularly because our ability to secure enough cheap energy will be crucial to this nation’s success in the decades ahead. I would also like to put on record my thanks to the officials he will now work with.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his endeavour, but energy will be this Government’s big test. They talk a good game on growth, but the Secretary of State’s energy policy is their greatest liability. In government, we built more offshore wind than any other country bar China. We set out the largest expansion of nuclear power in 70 years. We said that, yes, we will need oil and gas in the decades ahead, as the Climate Change Committee has said, and we should use British oil and gas where needed. We are in a global race for energy, and demand will be higher in the years ahead because of data and artificial intelligence.
If the right hon. Gentleman’s plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030 are in place, we need to know what they will do to people’s energy bills, our energy security and our reliance on the current dominant player for cables, batteries and critical minerals—China. He is happy to quote the Climate Change Committee, but it also acknowledged that we will need oil and gas well into 2050. He must answer: where would he like that to come from?
When it comes to quotes, he should consider some from the business world who have commented on his policy, such as the chief executive of Mitsubishi Power, who said that his plans would require a “huge sacrifice” by the country, citing the costs of the Secretary of State’s approach. The chief executive of Ineos said that his approach to energy was “absurd”, leaving us dependent on imports of foreign fuels with higher emissions and doing nothing for the climate. Even the GMB said that his plans were “unviable” and would lead to power cuts, blackouts and enormous cost. Unite has said that the Government’s plans for the North sea would turn oil and gas workers into the coalminers of their generation.
The right hon. Gentleman must answer why he would like to import gas with much higher emissions. How many jobs will be lost from his plans? How much investment into the new technologies of the future, such as hydrogen, carbon capture and offshore wind, will be lost? Will he meet those workers and explain to them what will happen to their livelihoods?
During the election, the right hon. Gentleman claimed that he would lower bills and save families £300. However, those numbers are already in the savings, and no one on his side can set out the cost of his plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030. Who will pay for those network costs? What will they do to people’s standing charges, which were already too high?
The right hon. Gentleman also, I think, commented on having a say in terms of communities. The energy infrastructure he will need, and the fact that he wants to go further and faster, will have a huge impact on rural communities. Their concerns must be addressed. As I set out, the plans for our energy cannot come at the expense of our food or national security.
In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman accused me of dither, but as he will know from his officials, in at least one of the cases he has signed off I had already instructed some time ago that I was minded to reject it, and that paperwork was being prepared. He must set out urgently what his criteria will be. In one case, he overturned an expert examining authority. In another case, he signed off a solar farm which will be 40% on our best and most versatile agricultural land. Did he know that was the case? If so, what was his basis for finding that acceptable? Will he continue our efforts to build more solar on rooftops? I think he mentioned that he would reconvene the solar taskforce. I hate to tell him, but it had never been disbanded and we were due to publish that work. So, I would like to know what date he will be able to publish that work.
In conclusion, the Secretary of State’s party won the election and promised change, but he was not on show during that campaign to answer these critical questions of how he was going to provide that change and what it will mean for the country. What will his plans mean for the price of electricity? What will they mean for our ability to keep the lights on? What will they mean for struggling families’ bills, for our economy, and for the livelihoods of oil and gas workers? What will they mean for our reliance on China? For all that the Labour Government talk about growth, they will not be able to deliver on that with the Secretary of State’s plans for energy. I hope that in the months ahead he will set out some of that detail to be examined.
Edward Miliband
May I start by congratulating the right hon. Lady on her recent engagement? I wish her and her fiancé all the best for the future. We may disagree on some issues, but I believe this Government and the right hon. Lady can at least share a belief in long honeymoons. [Laughter.]
On the right hon. Lady’s response, I have to say that I was disappointed. The lines were very, very familiar. That is because they were the lines she has used for the last year. And here she comes today to the House and repeats the lines as if the intervening meteorite has not hit the Conservative party: the worst election result in 200 years for her party. The truth, as sensible Conservatives know, is that the lurch she worked on a year ago with the former Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was an electoral disaster for the Conservative party—the lurch away from climate action. What we saw in her statement is the classic dilemma for the Conservative party, which we will see played out, I hope, for many long years of Opposition. The dilemma is do they go the Reform route to be climate deniers, or do they actually re-embrace climate—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that I do not need any advice? I will decide whether it is a question. It is an answer, actually.
Edward Miliband
On the points the right hon. Lady made, there is a fundamental issue, which is that unless we drive for clean energy—this is what the Climate Change Committee said; I strongly recommend that right hon. and hon. Members read it—we will end up energy insecure. We had the worst cost of living crisis in generations because of our exposure to fossil fuels, both domestically and internationally, set and sold on the world market. Unless we drive for clean energy, we will end up paying more for energy. The House would not know that from what she said about our 2030 target. She had a target when she was in government of 95% clean power by 2030. Of course, targets did not matter for the previous Government, because they were always miles away from reaching them.
As for the North sea, we set out our manifesto position, which is not to issue licences to explore new fields but to keep existing fields for their lifetime. Here is the truth of the conversation that we must have. The fate of North sea oil and gas communities is defined by these questions. Do we drive forward the clean energy of the future? Have we a plan for carbon capture and storage? Have we a plan for hydrogen? Have we a plan for offshore wind? The Conservatives had no such plans, so we will take no lectures on just transitions from them.
The right hon. Lady had other lines that were a rehearsal of the election. Let me say this to her, on the solar question. She referred to one particular planning decision, and I do think she has a degree of brass neck. She criticised me for overturning the planning authority. I am in a quasi-judicial role, so I will be careful about what I say, but she had this in her Department for a year. She could have agreed with the planning authority and rejected the application, but she chose not to do so. That is the reality.
In my experience, when you lose a general election a period of reflection is in order, and I say to Conservative Members that they need to reflect long and hard on the signals that they sent in this election. Their climate lurch was a disaster—a disaster for them electorally, but, much more important to me, a disaster for the country. Under this Government, Britain is back, open for business and climate leadership.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is great to see you back in the Chair, Mr Speaker. It is also great to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box on this side of the House again. I welcome what he said about the jobs, lower bills, energy security and climate action that lie at the heart of this Government’s plans. That is very true in respect of the Liverpool city region, where offshore wind—as he said—will play an important and increasing role in our energy future, along with onshore wind, solar power, hydrogen, carbon capture and nuclear energy. However, we also have exciting plans for tidal energy in the region, and I hope he can confirm that it will form a part of what he wants to achieve through the plans that he has announced.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend has long been an eloquent advocate for the role that business can play in generating the clean energy of our future and generating prosperity. I can absolutely confirm that we want to embrace the widest range of technologies. Obviously we must ensure that that gives value for money, but what I always say on these occasions is that the climate crisis and the energy security challenge are so big for us as a country that we must embrace every form of technology at our disposal, because that is the only way in which we will succeed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place. I share his passion for climate action. Let me add, however, that next time he makes a statement we will need our copies in better time than was the case today.
There is no doubt that the best route to affordable energy is renewables, but under the former Government renewable projects faced long delays and costs have skyrocketed. Indeed, that Government’s record on renewables was absolutely miserable. Our electricity demand is expected to double by 2050, and we must make upgrading our grid infrastructure a major priority. The Government will know that one of the biggest challenges will be to bring communities behind hosting the big infrastructure changes needed for the grid expansion, and to cope with the huge landscape transformation. How will they secure public consent?
As the Secretary of State said, to achieve our legally binding targets we also need a “rooftop solar revolution”, which will include introducing stronger incentives for households to install solar panels and ensuring a fair price for energy that they sell back to the grid. Will the Government work on those incentives with the Liberal Democrats?
We Liberal Democrats acknowledge the new approach taken by this new Government, and I look forward to working constructively with the Secretary of State to achieve our very ambitious targets.
Edward Miliband
May I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?
I welcome the hon. Lady’s questions; we worked together on these issues when we were in opposition. Let me deal with her two substantive points. On the question of public consent, this is absolutely something that we need to do, and I see it in three ways. First, communities need a say. Secondly, communities need benefit. Communities are providing a service to the country when they host clean energy infrastructure, so there needs to be benefit for those communities. Thirdly, this is a debate that we will have to have, and I am afraid the last Government did not grasp the nettle on this issue.
We are going through a massive change in our economy. If we do not build the grid or roll out solar, we will be poorer as a country and we will absolutely expose ourselves to future cost of living crises. I look forward to receiving as much support as possible from the Liberal Democrats, and indeed from all Members of this House, in making the case to people. We have to go out and make the case, as I think happened in the 1950s when we will built the grid. If we do not make the case, we will leave ourselves exposed as a country, and it is the British people who will pay the price. I completely concur with the hon. Lady on rooftop solar.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his position on the Front Bench, and I particularly welcome his reference to hydrogen. I know he has been to visit ITM Power in my constituency. When will an announcement be made about the chosen two technologies to pursue with small modular reactors? Will he give an assurance that whichever firms are picked, they will have to ensure that a very high percentage of the SMRs are built in this country by UK firms, such as Sheffield Forgemasters in my constituency? That will create well-paid jobs as well as clean energy.
Edward Miliband
I definitely concur with what my hon. Friend says about ITM Power—an incredibly impressive company that I have visited. I also concur with him on the SMR programme. Our manifesto made it clear that we support new nuclear, including at Sizewell, and we also support the SMR programme. Part of our challenge is to examine the legacy left to us by the last Government, but he should be in no doubt about my absolute support for the SMR programme. It is important, and we will strive to keep to the timetable set out.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his role, but he has been quite political in his replies. I gently point out that in West Worcestershire, fewer people voted Labour in this election than in the last election or the one before. I wonder whether he has ever visited the beautiful landscapes of West Worcestershire. The Malvern hills and Bredon hill are some of the most treasured landscapes in our land. What parameters is he going to put around the building of pylons, wind farms and solar farms across that beautiful landscape?
Edward Miliband
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As with any planning decisions, there are clear parameters in the legislation on the consultation that needs to take place with local communities. I gently point out to her that, nine years ago, the last Government banned onshore wind in England for some of the reasons that she set out. I thought that was a mistake at the time, and it turned out to be even more of a mistake than I thought, because it exposed us to energy insecurity. We have to make judgments as Members of this House. Given the scale of the climate crisis, the energy insecurity and the energy security threat that we face, do we believe that we need to build infrastructure? I happen to believe that we do—yes, with community consent; yes, with community benefit; and yes, with the planning rules that I have set out.
Martin McCluskey (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position. He was lucky enough to visit my constituency during the election campaign and to visit the port of Greenock, where he saw the great potential that exists for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West to contribute to the Government’s clean energy mission. What plans does he have to ensure that every part of the country, including in Scotland, can make a contribution? What message does he have for my constituents who are looking to the Government to make an investment in our ports and our marine assets?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend is an incredibly eloquent advocate for his port, which I was delighted to visit during the election campaign. He makes such an important point: for an island nation looking to take advantage—in terms of jobs as well as generation—of the opportunities of offshore wind, including floating offshore wind, our ports are a massively undervalued and under-invested asset. That is why in our manifesto we set out the largest public investment in ports since privatisation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it must involve the whole of our United Kingdom. Scotland has a special place in that, as it will become the new headquarters of GB Energy.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In the last Parliament, I was lucky enough to be the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deep geothermal. I felt that we made good progress in convincing the Government of its merits in helping the climate change transition. Will the new Secretary of State commit to a meeting with the REA—the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology, which acts as the secretariat for the APPG—and me to see what more we can do to convince the new Government of the role that deep geothermal can play?
Edward Miliband
In the spirit that I spoke about in my statement, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on deep geothermal? It was an outstanding example of how Members of Parliament can advance the role that particular technologies can play. He is a most eloquent advocate for this technology. Among the many places I went during the election campaign, I had the chance to see deep geothermal in Cornwall, which also has the potential for lithium mining: it is a source of critical minerals. Between me and the new Minister for energy—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is going to be a very busy man—we will make sure that we meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to take forward this agenda.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)
In line with the Cornwall thread, I call Jayne Kirkham.
Edward Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election. May I say that she is a great person to go out on a boat with and that I very much enjoyed our tour?
My hon. Friend makes such an important point about the Celtic sea and about the opportunity that we have. One of the decisions on my desk will be how we make sure that we advance floating wind technology and that we manufacture it in the UK. As Tim Pick, the offshore wind champion, often reminds me, the largest floating wind prototype is off the coast of Scotland, but it is not manufactured in the UK. We need to change that.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch, Dirprwy Lefarydd—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Labour manifesto stated that building new nuclear power and small modular reactors will be important in developing new clean power, yet in the King’s Speech yesterday there was not a single mention of nuclear power. Can the Secretary of State assure me that developing new nuclear power is still a priority of this Government? What are the specific plans for the Wylfa and Trawsfynydd sites in Wales?
Edward Miliband
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Great British Energy will of course have a strong interest in nuclear power, working with Great British Nuclear. It is very important for the future. This Government were very clear in our manifesto about the role that nuclear power—both large-scale nuclear and SMRs—can play. I know that the last Government purchased the site for Wylfa, and it is something that we will certainly be looking at.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and congratulate him on his ambition. BioYorkshire is a project—a green new deal—to create 4,000 green-collar jobs and upskill 25,000 workers. It will also create hundreds of spin-offs and new start-up companies focused on chemicals, agriculture and a new generation of fuels. Will he ensure that his Department has early engagement with this green new deal for York and North Yorkshire? Will he ensure that that is part of his energy superpower for the future?
Edward Miliband
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this project to my attention. In a way, the questions from both sides of the House demonstrate the huge potential we have in this area, not just to tackle the climate crisis and energy insecurity but to create the good jobs of the future. I undertake that the Department will want to look closely at her project.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What assessment has the new Secretary of State made of the proposal to build an interconnector between Morocco and the UK to bring clean solar and wind energy that could potentially provide 8% of the UK’s grid requirements?
Edward Miliband
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I certainly took an interest in the project when I was in opposition. I have met Xlinks, the company involved. I need to be careful about what I say on these matters, as he will appreciate, but it is certainly a project that my Department will want to consider.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He has already shown more ambition and leadership on transitioning away from dirty energy in his 14 days in government than the Tories showed in 14 years. Does he agree that by making the UK a clean energy superpower, we will be able to tackle air pollution, which kills more than 100 people a year in Manchester alone?
Edward Miliband
That is the kind of question I like. My hon. Friend makes a serious and important point about air pollution, which is another reason why we need to move away from fossil fuels. In a sense, the tragedy of air pollution is that it is a silent killer. Tens of thousands of people a year die prematurely in our country as a result of air pollution. People would be out on the streets if it were any other issue but, because it is a silent killer, it is too little noticed. He is absolutely right that this is yet another reason why it is important that we act with speed and transition as fast as possible.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am conscious that we do not have a register of interests at the moment so, for the Secretary of State’s own protection, it might be helpful if he could tell the House whether he accepted any donations or otherwise during the election campaign that might be declarable.
I want to press the Secretary of State further on protecting the landscape. Eighty per cent of my constituency is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, now rebranded as a national landscape. Can he reassure me that, in their planning decisions, he and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will respect the notion of protected landscapes? There is a series of solar farm applications in my constituency, some of which are either in or impinge on the area of outstanding natural beauty. The landscape is protected for a reason, and it is important that the Government respect those protections in planning law. I hope he can confirm that that will be the case.
Edward Miliband
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I am proud to have been supported by the GMB and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers during the election campaign. I think the sums are below the declarable limit, but I am very happy to put that on the record.
As a constituency MP, I understand local people’s concerns about planning issues, and we have to take those concerns seriously. We know that not all planning applications are good, and that is the Government’s position. At the same time, particularly in the light of what the National Infrastructure Commission has said, it is widely recognised that how the planning process works has delayed the clean energy we need and has made us poorer as a country. This Government are determined to change that.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the constructive manner in which he and the Government have approached the vital issue of the Grangemouth refinery, which is crucial to life in my constituency. Can he confirm that the UK Government will be tenacious and resolute in seeking an industrial future for the Grangemouth site? Will he agree to meet me to discuss potential options for its future?
Edward Miliband
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being such an eloquent advocate for Grangemouth so early in his time as a Member of Parliament. His counsel, advice and work on this subject have been very important. I have had three conversations with my counterpart in the Scottish Government over the last two weeks, which is a sign of how we intend to continue. We will work across parties and across Government to do all we can. The future of Grangemouth really matters to this Government, and we will leave no stone unturned in working with the unions, the companies and the Scottish Government to do everything we can to secure a viable future for activity on the site and for the communities of Grangemouth.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
After the King’s Speech and this statement, we still do not have a clue about what GB Energy will look like. The Government cannot even tell us where it will be placed, other than within the 30,000 square miles of Scotland. Greg Jackson, the boss of Octopus Energy, has said that if we reformed this absurd energy market through some form of regional pricing structure, everybody in the UK would have cheaper bills and Scotland would have the cheapest energy in Europe. Will the Secretary of State look at that and ensure that he delivers that prospect for everyone in these isles?
Edward Miliband
I am slightly disappointed but not surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s tone. I would have thought that the Scottish National party would welcome a publicly owned energy generation company located in Scotland—my counterpart in the Scottish Government certainly welcomed it. Let us be absolutely clear that it will be a generator of energy. That is what companies such as Ørsted and Statkraft do. They own power in this country, and we will do the same. These are complex questions, and we definitely need fairness across the United Kingdom when it comes to energy prices. That is what this Government endeavour to deliver.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and welcome him back to government.
My constituents, and indeed all our constituents, have suffered the worst cost of living crisis in generations, thanks to the Conservative party being in thrall to fossil fuel interests and failing to invest in renewables. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need a publicly owned domestic energy champion that can speed up our transition to green energy, reduce our reliance on volatile international gas markets and cut household bills at the same time?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend has been an incredibly eloquent advocate on these issues, including in the last Parliament. This is an important point for all parties in the House to reckon with. The energy insecurity case for action on clean energy is totally transformed from when I was Energy Secretary 15 years ago. Why? Partly because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reminds us of what exposure can look like, but it is also because we have seen a 90% fall in the cost of solar and a 70% fall in the cost of offshore wind over the last decade. The old argument that this energy will save us money in the long term but might cost more in the short term has changed. This is the cheapest, cleanest form of energy we can access.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
There were 1,360 submissions from interested parties against the Sunnica application in West Suffolk, and the technical report recommending against the application is 339 pages long. Has the Secretary of State visited the Sunnica site? How many hours did it take him to read all the submissions and evidence to make his own detailed technical and legal judgment to overrule them.
Edward Miliband
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a super-nerd. I take all of my responsibilities, particularly my quasi-judicial responsibilities, incredibly seriously, and I did in all the judgments I made.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
My hon. Friends will find it nice referring to my right hon. Friend as the Secretary of State, and I thank him for his statement. His actions over the last few weeks underline the damaging inaction of the past 14 years. The CCC report out today confirms the true extent of the Tories’ climate denialism and the way in which it has undermined our ability to deliver on so many important aspects of this agenda.
Does the Secretary of State agree that no less damaging than climate denialism is the climate delivery denialism to which Members in certain parts of this House are now starting to fall back? Can he confirm that this Government will not shy away from some of the tough choices that will have to be made to deliver not only the climate agenda that voters have supported but the energy security we desperately need?
Edward Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He draws attention to a fact in the Climate Change Committee report that is worth underlining: we have an internationally set, nationally determined contribution of 68% reductions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. However, the Climate Change Committee said this morning that only a third of the emissions reductions required are covered by credible plans—that is the legacy we have been left. I am determined that we meet those targets, which is why we have to speed up and act in a way that the last Government did not.
My hon. Friend is right about clean energy. As I said earlier, this is a debate that this country will have to have. We can say no to clean energy and to building grids, but that will leave us poorer and more exposed, and mean that we are not doing what is required to tackle the climate crisis. This Government have made their choice; others will have to do so too.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. I welcome the tone of his statement and I share its ambition. Will he join me in commending the ambitious work of Lib Dem-led Oxfordshire county council, which wants to reach net zero by 2030, and the work of all councils everywhere? They are on the frontline of the climate crisis in our communities. He talks about local people having a say. Does he agree that often the best way for local communities to feel they have that say is through their local councils?
Edward Miliband
Characteristically, the hon. Lady makes an important point. To deliver this agenda, we have to get the central-local relationship right, because if we try to deliver it all from the centre we will not succeed. To take the example of improving the appalling state of energy efficiency in our homes, much of that work will have to be delivered by local authorities. That is the right way to do it, and I pay tribute to all the local authorities across the country that are showing ambition in that area.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. The Cities of London and Westminster have a huge contribution to make for the UK to be a clean energy superpower, not just through investment driven from the City of London and innovation driven by businesses across the constituency, but through our residential community energy schemes, such as Aldgate Solar Power, which is a fantastic local co-operative. However, after years of dither and delay by the Conservative Government and the former Conservative council, the Pimlico district heating undertaking is in desperate need of investment. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can make it an exemplar scheme and mitigate the cost for local residents and leaseholders, who may be facing significant costs because of the nature and construction of the heating equipment?
Edward Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election. I have worked with her in the past and I know she will be an outstanding Member of Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, is going to be very busy, but I am sure he will happily meet her to discuss her question. She raises community energy schemes.
I want to emphasise that one thing Great British Energy will deliver is our local power plan, which will work with local communities and local authorities to deliver community energy. One of the answers to the question of how we build public consent for this is community ownership of energy. We want to drive that forward, and that is what the local power plan will be about.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. The decisions that the Government have made will see a much more rapid decommissioning of oil and gas in the North sea. How much additional money has he secured from the Treasury to cover the Government’s legal costs for that decommissioning, and how much does he think it will cost in total?
Edward Miliband
The most important thing is to secure a just transition for those communities, as set out in our manifesto, through £8.3 billion from Great British Energy and over £7 billion from our national wealth fund. The truth is that there is massive debate in the House about licensing. The right hon. Gentleman will not have been at the debate when we discussed these issues, but the difference it makes to how much of our gas demand is produced domestically is that under the old Government—[Interruption.] Let me explain. Under the old Government policy, there would have been a 95% reduction in our demand met domestically, but under this Government’s policy, it will be 97%. For all the hue and cry from the Opposition, that is the reality.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. Cornwall is one of the most deprived areas of northern Europe. However, we are blessed with vast renewable energy resources, as mentioned earlier: onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, tidal, solar and ground source heat technologies, as well as critical minerals, not from China but from Camborne and Redruth. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Cornish colleagues to discuss how GB Energy will be used to realise our renewable energy potential and to transform local Cornish economies?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend is also a great guy to go on a boat with. As he says, Cornwall and our coastal communities have an incredibly important part to play. Some of the biggest economic challenges we face as a country are in our coastal communities. It is not easy, but if we get this right it will be a massive opportunity, not just for Cornwall but for all our coastal communities, and that is what this Government intend to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Oh, thank you—you caught me off guard there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am so used to being the last one in the House to be called.
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. I know it has always been his ambition to have the opportunity to have this role. Now he has it, I hope it goes well for him, and we will support him in what he is trying to achieve. With the new Government comes a new way of achieving goals and aims. I represent Strangford, which is a mostly rural constituency. Farming is a way of life and a key part of the economy. It creates thousands of jobs and opportunities, and is key to our future. Green energy and net zero are important for that as well. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the farming community and agrifood needs will be paramount in any effort to achieve a better world for all of us to live in?
Edward Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. In the last few days, I have sometimes sai3d to people that I feel that I am going back to the job I did 15 years ago, but getting to try and do it better. I am sure Members on the Opposition Benches would agree with that. It is an amazing opportunity and a big responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the role of rural of communities, particularly farming communities. We are determined to get the balance right between food security, nature preservation and clean energy. The truth is that we, as a country, have not thought about the role of our land enough in recent years. We hope that will be driven by the land use framework that will be produced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their place. He will know that my constituency has benefited hugely from offshore wind, particularly in operations and maintenance, but the critical part of the supply chain has failed to be produced. What does he suggest that Members across the House can do to ensure we get the supply chain right so that my constituents can benefit from that investment?
Edward Miliband
I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House. It is fantastic to see her back in her place—I congratulate her. She knows much about this subject through working for RenewableUK when she was outside the House, and she makes an important point. The shadow Secretary of State drew attention to our generation of offshore wind, which we have done well, but it is commonly accepted that we have not done nearly so well in generating the jobs that should come with that. Part of what I will be doing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is developing a proper green industrial strategy, including in the supply chain. That will provide clarity about the plan to ensure that we have not just energy generation, but job generation too.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his role, and welcome the Government’s recognition that public investment must play a substantial role in decarbonising power. I have seen that from my previous career in offshore wind. However, this public investment must not be only about de-risking private sector investment, though some of his colleagues have implied that that would be the principal role of Great British Energy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Great British Energy will invest in fully publicly owned, or at least majority publicly owned, renewable generation projects, and will not confine itself to taking minority stakes in private sector-led projects that would give it very little control?
Edward Miliband
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I can confirm that GB Energy will play a role in all kinds of ways, and that we are certainly not restricting it in the way that she suggests. Furthermore, in the constructive spirit of these exchanges, I would ask that the Green party thinks about its commitment to tackling the climate crisis, which we all share, and then thinks about this question of infrastructure. If it wants to tackle the climate crisis, it should know that that simply will not happen if its leading members say no to new energy infrastructure.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his place. It is very appropriate that he is bringing this level of energy to the debate, and we all hope to see much more of that in the years ahead. It is a big contrast to the previous 10 years of inaction, which has cost us, not just in terms of our energy security, but in wasted opportunity. I wish to touch on one of those opportunities, which is the huge tidal power potential that Britain has in Swansea, and not just in Sefton. Does he agree that it is time to seize that opportunity, rather than waste it?
Edward Miliband
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He was head of policy when I was Leader of the Opposition, and I tended to do what he told me, rather than the other way round, so it is a particular pleasure to see him in his place. He makes such an important point. Tidal is an area where Britain is in the lead, but we want to go further and faster, as it has huge potential for our country.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, but I have to say that the Government’s disastrous decision to industrialise our highly productive, good agricultural land by approving three huge solar farms clearly demonstrates their unwillingness to listen to the concerns of local rural communities; it runs roughshod over them and their ability to have their say. It is also hugely detrimental to food security. Can he explain to the House how he will look the farming community in the eye and explain his decision, as well as the Government’s lukewarm words on food security being national security?
Edward Miliband
I am afraid that we have to conduct these debates on the basis of fact, not myth. Some 0.1% of our land, and around that amount of agricultural land, is being used for solar panels. We cannot proceed on the basis of myth. The hon. Gentleman talks about the farming community. Farmers want this. The National Farmers Union has supported this decision. Of course we will work with local communities, but every time an Opposition Member gets up and opposes clean energy, they are saying to the British people, “We are going to make you poorer. We are going to make Britain more energy insecure, and we are not going to tackle the climate crisis.”
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for setting out his very clear strategy. Will he confirm whether projects such as the new hydrogen hub in Bradford will be at the forefront of that strategy? Will he guarantee proper investment in places such as Bradford, so that we can grow and become a global leader in this sector, as well as generate well-paid and sustainable jobs?
Edward Miliband
I really welcome my hon. Friend’s advocacy on this issue. The hydrogen economy is a really important part of our future. It is yet another example of where we can succeed as a country and generate good jobs and good wages. I look forward to engaging with him on these issues.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May I take the Secretary of State back to the question of tidal power generation? If he speaks to the developers in the sector, they will tell him that they need two things to keep growing the sector. They need an expanded pot for the ringfenced allocation in the next allocation round, and they need an ambitious deployment target for the sector. Can we have an early announcement on that? If he really wants to understand the potential of marine renewables, he needs to get himself up to the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney. He is very welcome there at any time, but he might want to come in the summer, while the days are still long.
Edward Miliband
I thank the right hon. Member for that invitation, and I will very much consider it, because I care a lot about this area. Obviously, I have to make decisions, in a certain capacity, about allocation round 6, but I have heard what he has said.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his excellent team to their new roles. Can I look forward to welcoming them back to Whitelee wind farm, which he has been to many times before, to see how the largest onshore wind farm in the UK is contributing not only energy, but to the community and its life?
I declare an interest as the outgoing chair of the Uyghur Campaign in the UK. The Secretary of State will be aware that much of the polysilicon used in solar manufacturing is sourced from the Uyghur region, where Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims are routinely used as slave labourers. The expansion of solar that the Secretary of State is envisioning gives us enormous economic leverage in the UK, and I wonder how he intends to use that leverage to get the industry to clean up its supply chains and seek alternative sources of polysilicon.
Edward Miliband
Let me welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He raises a very important issue. There were some standards put in place by the previous Government, but I think that we should take this issue incredibly seriously. I look forward to discussions with him on these issues.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Secretary of State speaks very passionately about GB Energy. I remind him that just a few years ago, the Labour-controlled Nottingham city council had its own energy company called Robin Hood Energy, but this was Robin Hood with a modern twist: it robbed from the poor and gave to the rich, and cost the taxpayer about £50 million. Can the Secretary of State tell the House from that Dispatch Box how much GB Energy will cost the taxpayer?
Edward Miliband
First of all, let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that Robin Hood Energy was a supply company; this is a generation company. Robin Hood was a retailer, so it is different, but I have to say that I am surprised at the position that he takes. I thought his party was in favour of publicly owned energy. I think it produced lots of videos on social media to that effect.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows from his recent visit to my constituency just how important energy security is for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am just sorry that there was no boat. Over 14 years of the Tories, families’ bills have been pushed up, and we were left at the mercy of Putin after his invasion of Ukraine. May I urge the Secretary of State to get to work quickly, following his excellent return to the job—he is the comeback kid—so that we can cut bills and give my constituents the energy security that they deserve?
Edward Miliband
I think to be called a kid at my time of life is stretching things a bit, but I am nevertheless grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. He makes the important point that huge opportunities exist right across our country. The United States has used the Inflation Reduction Act to seize those opportunities. Our economy is smaller, but we intend to seize those opportunities with a proper, modern industrial policy.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Somerset is home to many ground-mounted solar farm developments. Although I fully support the significantly increasing amount of electricity that we generate from renewables, I believe that the communities that host the infrastructure should receive compensation. The Government’s recent policy statement on onshore wind agreed with that, so will community benefit funds be mandated for new solar farm developments?
Edward Miliband
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The previous Government had a whole series of consultations out on community benefit. We will respond to those, but I want to be very clear that I believe that when a community takes on the responsibility of hosting clean energy infrastructure, it should benefit from it.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his role, and I welcome his ambition. During the general election campaign, so many residents in Knowsley told me that they were struggling with the cost of living crisis and rising energy bills. Can the Secretary of State confirm that Great British Energy will allow us to take back control of our system, give us energy security, and crucially lower bills for families?
Edward Miliband
Let me welcome my hon. Friend to her place, and congratulate her on her election; she will be a great Member of Parliament. She raises such an important issue. More than 3 million people are in fuel poverty in our country. One thing that this Government will do that the last Government did not is demand that landlords raise the standard of their accommodation to a proper energy performance certificate standard C by 2030. That will make a dent in this issue, but the House should be in no doubt about our ambition to cut that number of 3.2 million as much as possible in the five years of this Parliament.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Plans for 90 miles of pylons from Lincolnshire to my North West Norfolk constituency and new substations are strongly opposed by local communities. Will the Secretary of State commit to a review of network technologies, and consider a presumption in favour of underground or offshore proposals?
Edward Miliband
I will look at all proposals, but I think the hon. Gentleman knows that underground cables cost six to 10 times more; that is why the last Government did not agree to them. If part of our challenge is to cut bills for people, that is not a sustainable solution for the future. I am sympathetic to all MPs who raise issues on behalf of their constituents, but I gently say again to him that if we want to avoid a repeat of the cost of living crisis, if we want to tackle the climate crisis, and if we want energy security, we will have to build the grid in our country.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I welcome the comments of the Secretary of State, which are incredibly encouraging for communities such as mine in west Wales. Throughout the campaign, I heard again and again the demand from local people, from Pembroke Dock to Milford Haven, for well paid, secure jobs in the industries of the future. In the port of Milford Haven we have a huge opportunity, particularly in the area of floating offshore wind. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the opportunities for my constituency, and how we can overcome the barriers to investment in local jobs?
Edward Miliband
I was delighted to visit the port of Milford Haven during the election campaign. There is an interesting issue here: the £1.8 billion investment that this Government are making in our ports will hopefully allow us to invest in floating offshore wind at more ports than the last Government were able to. I cannot make promises about particular ports from the Dispatch Box, but this is so important, because if we are to get the jobs here, we must invest in our port infrastructure.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State referred multiple times to community consent, yet the 6,000 acres of solar installation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) had no community consent. That sends shivers down the spine of my constituents in and around the villages known as the Claydons, who are looking down the barrel of a 2,100-acre solar installation called Rosefield. That is on top of a proposed battery storage plant next door, and on top of the National Grid wanting to build a brand-new substation to take the thing in; it is the tail wagging the dog. What will change to make community consent a reality?
Edward Miliband
What the hon. Gentleman wants for nationally significant projects is community veto.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman nods his head. I will be honest with him: we are not going to give community veto. The last Government did not give it either. There are nationally significant projects that the Government have to make decisions on. Obviously, we have to take into account the views of local communities, but the whole point of decision making on the nationally significant infrastructure programme is that we look at the needs of the nation as well. That is why community benefit is important. If we ask local communities to host clean energy infrastructure, sometimes they will not want it, or sometimes a minority will not want it—I am not making presumptions in this case—and then we should ensure that those communities benefit from it.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to the Chamber. It is a privilege to make my first contribution in this House on such an ambitious plan. It is ambitious not just on net zero, the climate crisis and energy security, but on jobs and opportunities for young people in places such as mine. In my constituency, Peterborough college is already building a green technology centre to develop new green apprenticeships, and we have plans for a clean energy transition centre. Will the Secretary of State put on record his commitment to working with trade unions, communities, colleges and others, so that we can move from blue-collar to green-collar apprenticeships, and give young people an opportunity to succeed in life as we meet our climate and energy needs?
Edward Miliband
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He raises the important question of how we ensure—this issue will be familiar to Members across the House—that we not only have the capacity to generate jobs in clean energy but can meet the skills needs of the country in order to fill them. This is frankly something on which we need to do a lot better as a country. My Department—I will talk about this in the next few weeks—will take on more of a function around looking at the skills needs of the clean energy economy, working with the Department for Education on how we meet them. He raises a crucial point in that context.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on their recent appointment and thank them for their recent visit to Cheyne Court wind farm in my constituency, which was opened by the Secretary of State in 2009. Dungeness A and Dungeness B in my constituency are former nuclear power stations that are in the process of being decommissioned. Dungeness has the land, infrastructure, grid connections and local expertise that make it well placed for new nuclear. Will the Secretary of State be willing to meet me to discuss how we can harness Dungeness’s potential for the local area and the regional community?
Edward Miliband
I was delighted to visit the Cheyne Court wind farm with my hon. Friend—a wind farm that I opened 15 years ago on my first visit as the Secretary of State. Pictures of how much I have aged between then and now are available on request. He raises a really important issue. He is an important advocate for clean energy, whether in relation to wind power or the potential nuclear programme. Both are important to us.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his position, and on the vigorous start that he has made on this most important of issues facing humanity and the world. I was particularly encouraged to see him put climate diplomacy high on the agenda, and at the heart of the new Cabinet. That is so important, after 14 years of the previous Government’s denigration of Britain’s role in the world on this most important issue of tackling climate change. Will he further outline to the House the work that he plans to ensure that, unlike in the past 15 years, Britain will be the main player that it needs to be in global co-operation on tackling the threat of climate change?
Edward Miliband
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has asked me that question. The world wants to see British leadership, but British leadership starts at home with the power of example. If we do not show that we are acting at home then people say, “You’re telling us one thing abroad, but doing something different when it comes to your own domestic situation.” The truth is that COP29 in Azerbaijan and crucially COP30 in Brazil will be very important moments. COP30 is when the world has to come to terms with how far off track we are from 1.5°C, and put in our nationally determined contributions for 2035. I look forward to Britain playing as much of a constructive role in those negotiations as we can.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Teesside is perfectly positioned for the green jobs of the future—jobs in hydrogen, clean power and ports—as my right hon. Friend knows from his recent visit to Teesport. Will he meet me and colleagues to ensure that we can bring jobs and investment to Teesside?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend, who I welcome to his place, makes such an important point about the role Teesside can play. I saw on a recent visit how much potential there is and we look forward to working with him on these issues.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend and his team to their place. He had the privilege of visiting Basingstoke college of technology during the election campaign to meet some of the fantastic apprentices and students there. Further to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), will he commit to working with colleges such as BCOT as he develops the plan for skills and training for the hundreds of thousands of jobs we need to deliver on our ambition of a clean energy superpower?
Edward Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend and welcome him to the House. He brings a wealth of knowledge and experience on these issues. I enjoyed my visit to Basingstoke. What really came home to me on that visit was young people’s enthusiasm for this agenda—not simply because they care about the climate crisis, but because they see this as a potential future for themselves, their friends and their family. I look forward to working with colleges such as his to make that a reality.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is great to see my right hon. Friend in his place after over a decade of leadership on this issue, talking about climate change and really making that difference. If we are to be a clean energy superpower, we need to learn from good examples and better practice wherever it is. In Calder Valley, Together Housing is a good example of a housing association that is doing well in putting solar on roofs and taking advantage of microgeneration. However, I am sure he will agree that one problem for those kinds of projects is that the national grid is not up to scratch. Key to being a clean energy superpower is getting a modern national grid. Will he also agree to visit some of Together Housing’s projects, which keep bills down and put solar panels on roofs?
Edward Miliband
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place and congratulate him on his election, and I commend his housing association for what it is doing. He raises one of the biggest issues that the previous Government faced and that this Government face. The flipside of all the Conservative Members saying that they do not want the grid built is what my hon. Friend just said—maybe they should have a conversation. What he is saying is that if we do not build the grid, we cannot get the clean energy and we cannot cut bills for our constituents. I do not say that this is easy, and I do not want to pretend that it is. Certainly the last Government did not find it easy, but we have to decide. To govern is to choose, and our choice is that we believe this clean energy infrastructure needs to be built.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Last week Bracknell Forest council held a climate change summit, bringing together local businesses, schools and community organisations in my constituency to engage in discussions about how best to face the challenges of climate change. Does the Secretary of State agree that communities are crying out to take part and to be engaged in the clean energy transition?
Edward Miliband
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend. He raises an important point that we have not touched on: the role of citizens in this change. My sense is that, while of course there are specific planning issues that people raise about their own communities, the view of many citizens in our country is, “What can I do? What difference can I make?” I think the Government need to do a better job of answering that. That is not nanny-statism, to reassure the Conservatives, but public information about the difference people can make in this incredibly important cause.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Siobhain McDonagh)
Last but not least, I call Laurence Turner.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
As a recent official of the GMB trade union, which has been mentioned in this statement, I welcome the Secretary of State and his team and officials to their place. How welcome it is to have a change of Government from the record of the last 14 years, with the ducking and delaying of difficult decisions on issues from nuclear to gas storage, and the exclusion for too long of workers’ voices from the decisions that affect the energy system. In opposition, my right hon. Friend established an energy transition working group to bring together trade unions and workers’ voices at the heart of energy plans. Can he confirm today that continuing that group in government will be an early priority for this new Administration?
Edward Miliband
I welcome my hon. Friend to this House and thank him for the work we did together in opposition on all these issues. As this is the final question, he ends on a really important point: this Government have a completely different attitude to the role that trade unions can play in the future of our energy system, and we are proud of it. If we are to make the energy transition, including in the North sea, and build a proper industrial policy for the future, we should do what every other self-respecting nation does and have trade unions at the heart of our policymaking and decision making. That is what this Government will do.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Congratulations everybody on getting through that; I am delighted that everybody got to ask their question and I thank the Secretary of State for his responses.
Energy Infrastructure Planning Projects
Ed Miliband Excerpts(4 days, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Edward Miliband)
This statement confirms that it has been necessary to extend the deadlines for decisions on the following four applications made under the Planning Act 2008:
The Mallard Pass solar farm development consent order for the construction and operation of a solar farm energy generation development on land in Lincolnshire, South Kesteven and Rutland by Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on 16 February 2024, and the previous deadline for a decision was 13 June 2024.
The Sunnica solar farm development consent order for the construction and operation of a solar farm and battery storage energy generation development on land in Cambridgeshire by Sunnica Ltd. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on 28 June 2023, and the previous deadline for a decision was 20 June 2024.
The Gate Burton energy park development consent order for the construction and operation of a solar farm and battery storage energy generation development on land in Lincolnshire by Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on 4 April 2024 and the previous deadline for a decision was 4 July 2024.
The North Lincolnshire green energy park development consent order for the construction and operation of a combined heat and power enabled energy generating development, with an electrical output of up to 95 MWe, incorporating carbon capture, associated district heat and private wire networks, hydrogen production, ash treatment, and other associated developments on land at Flixborough industrial estate, Scunthorpe by North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Ltd. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on 15 August 2023, and the previous deadline for a decision was 18 July 2024.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. Prior to taking decisions, the Secretary of State decided to set new deadlines for the applications as follows:
Mallard Pass solar farm: 22 July 2024.
Sunnica solar farm: 22 July 2024.
Gate Burton energy park: 22 July 2024.
This is due to the general election as no decisions are taken during a pre-election period. This is the first opportunity I have had to update the House on these cases.
The decisions for those cases extended to 22 July have now been taken. In the case of the North Lincolnshire green energy park, the new deadline is 18 October 2024 to allow for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the evidence gathered by its review into the role of waste incineration capacity in the management of residual wastes in England.
The Department will always endeavour to issue decisions ahead of the deadlines above, wherever possible.
The decision to set the new deadline for the North Lincolnshire green energy park application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS6]
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Miliband Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Two weeks ago the Government were found, for a second time, to be in breach of the law over their climate targets. That failure will mean that families across the country will pay higher energy bills. The Court found:
“The Secretary of State’s conclusion that the proposals and policies will enable the carbon budgets to be met was irrational”.
Last time, the Government claimed that their breach of the law was just on a technicality. What is the right hon. Lady’s “dog ate my homework” excuse this time?
Claire Coutinho
Let us be clear: the Court did not question the policies that we have set out, which we have done in more detail than any of our peers. It did not question the progress that we have already made, as the first G20 country in the world to halve emissions, and it did not question the ambition of our future targets, which are among the most ambitious of our peers. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at what would smother the transition and private investment in this country, he need only look at his own mad, unachievable 2030 target.
Edward Miliband
With a defence like that, I can see why the Government lost in court not just once but twice. Buried in the court documents is the confidential memo that reveals the real reason they lost the case—officials were telling Ministers that they had low or very low confidence that half their carbon reductions would be achieved. That is why they were found unlawful. The right hon. Lady comes to the House each month with her complacent nonsense, but the court judgment exposes the truth: the Government are way off track, abysmally failing to meet the climate emergency and pushing up bills for families as a result.
Claire Coutinho
I have learned in this role that the right hon. Gentleman likes to call people who disagree with him names. Last week, representatives from the Tony Blair Institute said that his plans would raise bills and harm our energy security. Are they flat earthers? An industry report said last week said that his plans would see up to 100,000 people lose their jobs. Are those people who are worried climate deniers? When will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his plans are based on fantasy and ideology and are the last thing that this country needs?
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Miliband Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, can I start by paying tribute to your father, Doug? He was a remarkable fighter for social justice, and we share your sense of loss.
A year ago, after presiding over the absolute scandal of the forced installation of prepayment meters, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor promised full compensation for anyone affected. Unbelievably, she has left it to the energy companies to decide who gets compensation and how much. They have assessed 150,000 people and just 1,500 got anything—99% got nothing. Why has she so catastrophically failed to deliver justice for those affected by the PPM scandal?
Claire Coutinho
The right hon. Gentleman does actually raise an important issue. We have gripped the question of prepayment meters since the scandal first emerged. Not only have we made it clear that the horrors that we saw last winter, of people forcing prepayment meters on vulnerable households, should not take place, but I have been in contact with Ofgem in recent days about making sure that people can get the compensation they deserve at the speed with which they need it.
Edward Miliband
That is simply not good enough. It is a year on. The right hon. Lady is the Energy Secretary; she should be delivering that compensation to people, and she is failing across the board. The onshore wind ban remains; the offshore wind market crashes; the insulation schemes are a disaster, while she spends her time appeasing the flat-earth, anti-net zero brigade in her own party. No wonder the former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) resigned. Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State is failing in her job and the British people are paying the price?
Claire Coutinho
The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my previous answer. It was this Government who worked with Ofgem to make sure that forced prepayment meter installation stopped taking place for vulnerable households. We have said very clearly that it is abhorrent, and we do not want to see it again. On compensation, we are working with Ofgem.
However, if the right hon. Gentleman talks about the wider energy plans—and we should do that—I think that he should consider the recent comments from industry that Labour’s plans would leave the country uninvestable, that they would hike the bills that people would pay, and that they would cost so much in needed taxes—over £100 billion of costs for Labour’s mad plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030, which, let me be clear, are not backed by industry, the unions or consumers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Miliband Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Last September, the Energy Secretary claimed she was lifting the onshore wind ban, but in the whole of 2023 and so far in 2024 there have been zero applications for new onshore wind farms designed for domestic electricity supply in England. She said that her decision would speed up the delivery of projects. Why does she think it has not worked?
Claire Coutinho
Let me be clear about our record on onshore wind. Energy production has quadrupled since 2010, when we had 3.9 GW of onshore wind, to 15.4 GW in 2023. We have connected the second highest amount of renewables anywhere in Europe, whereas the right hon. Gentleman’s plans have been widely discredited by industry and would deter billions of pounds of investment in clean energy.
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Lady did not answer the question. I will tell her why it has not worked: because she has left a uniquely restrictive planning regime in place for onshore wind. Her failure is costing families across this country £180 a year on their bills. We know that her policy has failed. She could dump the ban at the stroke of a pen. If she is vaguely serious about clean energy, why does she not face down the headbangers on her Back Benches and lift the ban?
Claire Coutinho
As I said, we have connected the second highest amount of renewable electricity anywhere in Europe since 2010. Our record on renewable energy is clear. This is the most extraordinary deflection that I have seen. In recent weeks, the right hon. Gentleman’s leader has shredded his policy platform on energy. To be honest, I feel quite sorry for him, because thanks to the action of his leader and his shadow Chancellor, he has been hidden away, his policy has been ripped up and it is now obvious to everyone that Labour has no plan for energy.
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Ed Miliband ExcerptsMonday 22nd January 2024
(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 View all Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while affirming the need for urgent action to tackle the UK’s energy insecurity, the cost of living crisis, and the climate crisis, and for a managed, fair and prosperous transition for workers and communities, declines to give a Second Reading to the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill because mandating annual oil and gas licensing rounds will not reduce energy costs for households and businesses as the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has stated, will not enhance energy security, offers no plan for the future of the UK’s offshore energy communities, will ensure the UK remains at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets, is entirely incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments and is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation which will do nothing to serve the UK’s national interest.”
I want first to express my deep condolences to the families of the two people killed by storm Isha and my sympathies to all those facing power cuts and disruption from the storm.
The proposed legislation we are considering today will not cut bills or give us energy security, drives a coach and horses through our climate commitments and learns nothing from the worst cost of living crisis in memory, which the British people are still going through—a cost of living crisis caused by our dependence on fossil fuels. Since the launch of the Bill two months ago, the case for it has disintegrated on contact with reality. Let me remind the House of the series of unfortunate events that has befallen the Bill since its publication. On day one—launch day—the Energy Secretary went on TV with the big reveal, telling the public the Bill would not cut bills. Next we discovered from confidential minutes of the North Sea Transition Authority that it thought the Bill was unnecessary and compromised its independence. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) says from a sedentary position that that is not the case. He is wrong and I will read him the minutes:
“the Board expressed a unanimous view that such a proposal was not necessary for the NSTA…The Board noted that the proposal would significantly challenge one of the tenets of independence for the NSTA”.
Claire Coutinho
As the right hon. Gentleman is enjoyably quoting the NSTA minutes not its on-the-record comments, will he also support its position that we should maximise all of the oil and gas production in the North sea?
Edward Miliband
That is not the NSTA position, as I have discussed with it.
Next, Lord Browne, the former CEO of BP, attacked the Bill and said it was
“not going to not make any difference”
to energy security. Then Britain’s most respected climate expert, Lord Stern, pilloried it as “a deeply damaging mistake”. Then on the eve of COP—the conference of the parties—the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who signed net zero into law, said she disagreed with the Bill; to my knowledge, she does not support Just Stop Oil.
Edward Miliband
Of course I don’t.
Then the former COP president—[Interruption.] Let’s be serious. Then the former COP president the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), a man respected around the world who we were lucky to have playing that role at COP26, said the Bill was
“smoke and mirrors…not being serious…the opposite of what we agreed to do internationally”.
Finally, their own net zero tsar—the man they trusted to guide them on questions of energy—is so disgusted by the Bill that he is not in the Chamber today. In fact, he is so ashamed that he has fled to the Chiltern Hundreds. That is certainly getting a long way away from the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State and her policies. It shows how far people will go. It is not so much the oil and gas extraction Bill but the Conservative MP extraction Bill that she is putting forward today. The former net zero tsar said:
“I can no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm.”
We should take all these voices—Lord Browne, the former Prime Minister, the former net zero tsar and the former COP President—[Interruption.] I will come to all the arguments that the Secretary of State made, if she will give me a minute, as I develop my argument. The bigger point is that we face massive challenges as a country, but it is not the scale of our problems that is so apparent today, but the smallness of the Government’s response. We have a risible two-clause Bill that she knows will not make any difference to our energy security, because everyone who knows anything about this subject says so.
As the Bill has fallen apart, the Government have thrashed around to try to find a rational justification, and they have made one futile argument after another. Let us take each in turn. The first argument was that the Bill will cut prices. In case the House is thinking, “Did they really make that claim?”, the claim was made by the Prime Minister in a tweet. At 9.57 am on launch day, he said that the Bill will
“help reduce energy bills as we’re less exposed”—
Edward Miliband
The Secretary of State nods, but I put on record my thanks to her, because she has been an internal one-woman rebuttal unit against the Prime Minister. She went on breakfast TV—before the tweet, so we might call it a prebuttal—and said that the Bill
“wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down, that’s not what we’re saying.”
She is right, because oil and gas is traded on international markets.
Claire Coutinho
If the right hon. Gentleman had read the full quote, I said that indirectly, through support to the renewables sector, the Bill brings down bills. The fact that we can raise tax to help people with the cost of living also brings down bills. If he would like to bring down bills for people in this country, he should back this Bill.
Edward Miliband
That is great, because the Secretary of State anticipates my rebuttal of the second bad argument for this Bill, which is the argument she has just gone on to make. She said that the tax revenues we get from fossil fuels justify this policy, and we have heard it again today. If anything, that is an even more complete load of nonsense than the Prime Minister’s argument, because these are the facts: it is our reliance on fossil fuels that has caused rocketing energy bills. That meant that the Government were forced to step in to provide support for households and businesses [Interruption.] Ministers should just listen.
The cost to Government of the support with bills has far outweighed any tax revenues. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the windfall tax receipts from oil and gas companies raised £25 billion, and the cost of Government support is more than £70 billion or, the Government say, £104 billion. The idea that our dependence on fossil fuels can be justified by the tax revenues we get, when they have spent £100 billion trying to help people, is obviously nonsense.
There is a third bad argument, and again we heard it today, which is that somehow this Bill strengthens our energy security. Again, it is important to have a few facts in this debate. Here are the facts: the UK’s North sea gas production is set to fall with new licences by 95% by 2050, or without new licences by 97%. That is the equivalent of four days of our current gas demand. All this absolute codswallop about the Bill guaranteeing our energy security and somehow guaranteeing 200,000 jobs is risible nonsense.
Here is the thing. We have had a real revelation in this debate—the Government have admitted the truth—which is that the vast majority of oil is not used in this country; it is exported elsewhere, and 70% of our remaining reserves are oil, not gas. The idea that this makes any difference to our energy security is nonsense—these are private companies selling on the private market—and the Government have absolutely no response.
The fourth bad argument is that the Bill will somehow protect jobs. That is wrong. We owe it to oil and gas communities to protect them in the transition, but given the Conservatives’ record in constituencies such as mine, we will not take lectures from them on just transitions. We should admit a truth: the fossil fuel market is not just deeply unstable for consumers, as we have seen over the last two years, but deeply unstable for workers. It is a total illusion that new licences will somehow guarantee jobs for North sea workers. In the last 10 years, the number of people working in oil and gas has more than halved. The International Energy Agency predicts a peak in fossil fuel demand by 2030. That is why its head said:
“New large-scale fossil fuel projects not only carry major climate risks, but also business and financial risks for the companies and their investors.”
That applies to workers, too.
The right way to have a managed transition in the North sea is to carry on using existing fields—a Labour Government will do that—and to have a plan for North sea workers by driving forward with jobs in the industries of the future: offshore wind, carbon capture and hydrogen. But that is not what the Government have done. We had a graphic example of that last week. The world’s largest floating wind prototype sits off Peterhead—that is a good thing—but it needed maintenance, so where did the maintenance happen? Not in Scotland, and not anywhere in the UK; it has been towed back to Norway. That is the scale of their industrial policy failure; we know it very well.
The Government have not generated the jobs that British workers deserve, and their fossil fuel policy and net zero roll-back has sent a terrible message to investors around the world. This is what Amanda Blanc, the chief executive officer of Aviva and the head of its UK transition plan taskforce, says about oil and gas and the Government’s position:
“This puts at clear risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires to become more climate-ready.”
It is Britain losing the global race in clean energy jobs that will destroy the future of oil and gas communities. The Government have no proper plan for those workers; Labour does have a proper plan.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is an absolute disaster for climate diplomacy, turning diligent negotiators into hypocrites and trashing our international negotiations and international reputation? Is it not clear that without proper diplomacy, future generations will be left with a much more dangerous and less stable world?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She takes me to the fifth and final bad argument that the Government are making for the Bill.
Edward Miliband
In a moment.
The Government argue that the Bill can somehow be justified on climate grounds, which demands a level of absurdity that should make even them deeply embarrassed. Let us get this straight. We signed a global agreement at COP28 for a transition away from fossil fuels in line with the science. That science is unequivocal: we must leave the majority of fossil fuels in the ground. But at home, their domestic policy is what they call “maxing out” the North sea.
Let us get this clear: in the crucial coming two years, Ministers will travel around the world to try to turn that COP28 agreement into reality, but how will the conversation go? The UK Minister will say to other countries, “We want you to leave your fossil fuels in the ground, because that is the agreement from COP28.” The country we are trying to persuade will say to us, “Hang on a minute. You’re saying we should leave our fossil fuels in the ground, but you’re planning to extract all yours.” What will we say, other than, “Yes, the Government are practising total hypocrisy, but please do as we say, not as we do.” That is the truth. The science is unequivocal.
Douglas Ross
I was hoping to intervene when the right hon. Gentleman was talking about jobs and investment, because he quoted an awful lot of people. Why did he not quote Sir Ian Wood, who said that Labour’s plans for the North sea oil and gas industry would
“place in jeopardy tens of thousands of jobs”.
David Whitehouse, the chief executive of Offshore Energy UK, said that Labour’s plans would “create a cliff edge”, deterring investment and heightening our risk of energy shortages. Why did he not mention those people?
Edward Miliband
I am very happy to talk about Ian Wood. We had a good roundtable with him in Aberdeen in November. I totally accept that it is for a Government of either party to show that there is a proper transition plan. I firmly believe that we can do it, but honestly, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the case that new licences will somehow guarantee a future for those North sea workers. How could he possibly say that four days’ worth of gas demand in 2050 will guarantee a future for those workers?
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that 10% of our current oil consumption is used in the manufacturing industry—not to be burned but for things such as lubricants, solvents and electronic components. That does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Is it acceptable to extract it from UK waters?
Edward Miliband
Eighty per cent. of what we get from UK waters is exported, not used here. We said clearly that we would continue with existing oil and gas fields. There must be a transition, and we cannot carry on regardless and max out the North sea. I know the right hon. Gentleman cares about the climate. It is important to listen to the respected authorities on climate. There must be a reason why the International Energy Agency, the Energy Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee, the former President of COP26 the right hon. Member for Reading West, and Lord Stern all say that the world is genuinely on a burning platform, and unless we address the issue of fossil fuels, we will head not to 1.5° but to 3° of warming.
That is the truth. It is incredibly hard, but the idea that we will say, “Look, there is a climate crisis; this will not make any difference to our energy security; the Energy Secretary says that it will not cut bills; it is not the answer for the jobs of the future; but we will carry on doing it anyway”, is climate vandalism. I genuinely say that to the right hon. Gentleman. He shadowed me 15 years ago, and I know that he cares about these issues, along with the right hon. Member for Reading West. People who really care about these issues have wrestled with this question. We have listened to the experts and we have thought to ourselves, “What does the science tell us on the one hand, and what difference will this make on the other?” Fair-minded people have reached the conclusion that I have reached, as has Lord Stern and all the other authorities.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I previously raised the progress report from the Climate Change Committee, which said that the Government were off track. The Secretary of State then assured the House that the Government remain extremely ambitious about climate change. Does my right hon. Friend agree that she must have meant that she supports causing climate change, given she is pressing ahead with new oil and gas licences?
Edward Miliband
I do not believe that it fulfils the kind of climate leadership that we pride ourselves on in this country. Here is another interesting fact for the House. UK Export Finance, I think with the guidance of the right hon. Member for Reading West, decided at COP26 that we would not finance oil and gas projects abroad. Now, there must be a reason why UKEF decided that. Presumably, the reason is that we want to make the transition away from fossil fuels. At the same time as UKEF decided not to do that, we will look like hypocrites if we do this by saying, “We’re just going to carry on maxing out at home.”
I know there are a lot of other people who want to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have a Bill—
Edward Miliband
Oh go on. That is very tempting, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Richard Drax
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has spoken for an awfully long time and I suspect he is coming to the end of his speech so that Back Benchers can participate. Not one idea has he put on the Floor of the House about what Labour would do were it to take over from us.
Edward Miliband
I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what we would do. I am really grateful to him for intervening, but I am sorry he has lengthened my speech. We would establish a national wealth fund to invest in British jobs to give a future in steel and automotive, and to invest in our ports. We would set up GB Energy to generate wealth for our citizens. If it is good enough for countries abroad, why is it not good enough for us? We would insulate homes across the country. We would finally lift the disgraceful onshore wind ban that is adding £180 to every family’s bills. That is just the start. I do not want to detain the House for too long, but there is plenty more where that came from.
Edward Miliband
I will not give way.
The truth is that there are two roads for Britain’s future: driving to clean energy by 2030 to cut bills and make us energy independent, and GB Energy to bring jobs in clean energy here at home and be a climate leader; or a Government who take the wrong path, cling to expensive and insecure fossil fuels, and make the British people pay the price, as they have for the past 14 years. The truth is that the Bill speaks volumes about a Government out of ideas and embarked on that second path. The Bill is one of the last desperate acts of a dying Government. I urge the House to support our reasoned amendment and vote against the Bill tonight.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Miliband Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
In the past month, the former Prime Minister who legislated for net zero has condemned the Minister’s oil and gas policy. His colleague the former COP President has accused the Government of “not being serious” and the Government’s net zero tsar has resigned his seat in disgust. Why does the Minister think that that is?
Graham Stuart
As we have rehearsed, the UK is the first major economy to halve its emissions. It is the one that is delivering more going forward. It is so important that we recognise that we will continue to need oil and gas for decades to come. The Labour party’s policy will do the opposite; it will weaken British jobs, reduce taxes and put up emissions, and that is why we remain committed, working across society, to ensuring that we deliver.
Edward Miliband
It is not just us who oppose the Minister’s Bill, but those on his own side—he has lost an MP over it. I know he brought down the last Government over fracking; he is trying to do it again with his new Bill. That is the reason that people have lost confidence. They see the hottest year on record and a Government backsliding on net zero. Is it not the truth that the Conservatives who know and care most about climate change no longer support this Government?
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman would love to think that was the case, but the Conservative party is united in driving this forward and in delivering. We are powering up Britain from Britain. We have taken ourselves from the abject position left by him when he was in government, which so many of my colleagues have described. We must not go back to that, because it would put bills up, it would put emissions up, and it would stop us being the global net zero leader that we are.
COP28
Ed Miliband Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and, indeed, for his regular commuting between Dubai and Westminster. Given that he brought the last Government down over fracking, I think he did not want a repeat performance, hence his return.
I welcome some of the key outcomes from COP28, including in particular the commitments on renewables and, crucially, a transition away from fossil fuels. That shows that the COP process, however flawed and imperfect, can provide a forcing mechanism for action by Governments. I pay tribute to the civil servants in the Minister’s Department for their hard work. Indeed, by a remarkable coincidence, the breakthrough in the negotiations occurred in the 24 hours when the Minister came home and they were left in charge.
But, for all the advances made, the truth is that the world is still hurtling towards disaster, way off track for keeping 1.5° alive. While we need an over-40% reduction in emissions by 2030, we are currently on track for emissions not to fall but to rise, and a temperature rise of approaching 3°. Even after the agreement, that is the reality, so the question for the world in the run-up to COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil is whether good words at COP28 are finally matched by actions equal to the scale of the emergency.
These will be the defining two years in this decisive decade, which will shape the lives of generations to come, so we need a Government in the UK who will stop congratulating themselves and using the UK’s record as an excuse for future inaction and instead lead at home in a way that is consistent with what we are demanding of others. The Minister complained about a lack of action on coal at the COP, but the Government are opening a new coalmine, watering down emissions targets, seeking to drill every last drop in the North sea and starting a culture war on net zero. That has sent a terrible message to business, investors and other Governments; one that was heard loud and clear by people at the COP.
Let me ask the Minister four questions about the Government’s approach. First, the COP decision says that we need to “transition away from fossil fuels” in line with the science. The science is unequivocal: for us to meet 1.5°, we must leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. He is right that many countries fear that some will seek to use loopholes in the COP agreement to avoid that reality. Our Government are doing precisely that: they say they want to drill every last drop in the North sea. The International Energy Agency, the Energy Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee and the former president of the COP, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), all say that that is incompatible with the science. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries in the next two years that they must leave their fossil fuels in the ground when he wants to extract all of ours?
Secondly, on targets for 2030 and beyond, the COP decision makes it clear that we need not just ambition but policies that will meet those targets. However, the Climate Change Committee says that we are way off track for our 2030 nationally determined contribution. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries to have policies to meet their targets when anyone can see that we are miles off meeting ours?
Thirdly, on finance, I welcome the contribution on loss and damage, but does the Minister recognise the lack of confidence that the Government will meet their promise to provide £11.6 billion of climate finance? Can he explain how he expects to persuade other Governments to keep their promises on finance when people suspect we will not keep ours?
Fourthly and finally, when the Prime Minister spends his time at home describing net zero as a massive burden—which is what he does—how does he remotely expect to persuade others, particularly those in the developing world, that it is a great opportunity? The Prime Minister claimed that nobody at COP raised with him his dither and delay; I suspect that was because he was not there long enough to hear the truth. His U-turns have been incredibly damaging for our country.
The positive outcomes at COP came despite this Government, not because of them. Britain needs a Government who will show climate leadership again—not climate hypocrisy—to cut bills, deliver energy independence, grow our economy and protect future generations. In the next two years more than ever, the world needs climate leadership from Britain. Is the truth not that people at home and abroad have seen enough to know this Government cannot provide the leadership that the world so urgently needs?
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I welcome what he said about the overall COP result and the need to celebrate it and build on it, and the fact that we need to ensure actions match words in this critical decade. That was one of the things we were wrestling with most, because new NDCs for 2035 are being worked on now for announcement ahead of the Belém COP in the Amazon in 2025, but it is in this decade that we need to bend the curve further. It is absolutely right that we do so.
The right hon. Gentleman has focused on performance, and I am pleased to say that this Government have met every single carbon budget to date. The only major targets set on climate change in this country that have been failed were—let me think—the target of 10% renewables by 2010, set by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2010, again set by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served, was also failed. Every single carbon budget for which this Government have been responsible since my then party leader became the first leader to call for the Climate Change Act 2008 has been met. Our record is without parallel, and I will not have it trash-talked down by the right hon. Gentleman, whose record in government is so at odds with the words he uses.
On oil and gas, we are a net importer. We are transitioning; as I have set out, we are reducing our emissions faster than any other major economy on this planet. None the less, according to the Climate Change Committee, about 25% of our power will come from oil and gas even in 2050. We will be using mitigation technologies to offset that, but the idea that we should replace domestically produced gas with imported gas with four times the embedded emissions, when it will make no difference to our consumption, is environmental nonsense. That is why we are standing up for the 200,000 people who work in our oil and gas industry as it transitions; it is why we support the £50 billion in taxes that comes from that industry; and it is why we must retain the expertise of people in the sector going forward. The Labour party puts at risk our net zero transition—a transition that it did not set out on properly when it was in government, and that this Government are delivering on. As I said, we have met all our carbon budgets to date.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point about loss and damage. I assure him and the House that we will meet our target of £11.6 billion in climate finance on the original timetable set out by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister came to COP, personally committed and passionate about ensuring that nature and forests—on which we have been a leader—were championed at that COP. Hopefully, I will be able to give more detail about that when answering other questions. As we move into the coming year ahead of the Baku COP, we will focus on a new, collective, quantified financial goal. The Prime Minister, with his focus and expertise, will ensure that the UK is an absolute leader in getting that right, amplifying the billions we have today into the trillions we need tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Miliband Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
The world sorely needs leadership at COP28, but the verdict of our most globally respected climate expert, Lord Stern, earlier this month was damning. He said that the Government’s backsliding on climate action is a “deeply damaging mistake”—damaging for the UK, the world and the future of us all. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to place on record her response to Lord Stern?
Claire Coutinho
The right hon. Gentleman should understand that we have the most ambitious climate target of any of our international peers. If he looks at the delivery today, he will see that we overshot on carbon budgets 1 and 2, and we are on track to overshoot on carbon budget 3. In fact, the UN gap report showed just last week that between 2015 and 2030 the UK is expected to reduce emissions at the fastest rate of any of the G20 countries.
Edward Miliband
The Secretary of State has no response to Lord Stern. The problem is that he sees a Government preaching one thing and doing another. Her negotiators at COP will argue to phase out fossil fuels, but she wants to drill every last drop at home and open new coalmines. She will tell developing countries that climate action is good for the economy, but the Government use climate delay to divide people here at home. Does she not realise that climate hypocrisy just trashes our reputation and undermines our leadership?
Claire Coutinho
I completely reject that characterisation. At COP28, we will be talking about the UK’s leadership when it comes to cutting emissions. We had cut emissions more than any of our international peers by 1990. Even if we look forward to our targets for 2030, we see that we will still be cutting emissions by more than any of our international peers. That is something that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to welcome.
Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower
Ed Miliband Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho
I will happily look at that.
The UK was the first major economy to set a legally binding date for net zero. Our ambitions for 2030 are ahead of those of our peers and we have the plans in place to meet them. In fact, we have met every single one of our stretching targets to reduce carbon emissions, thanks in no small part to our clean energy success. Labour seems to have conveniently forgotten about the shameful state of our renewables sector when it left office. Just 7% of our power came from renewables in 2010; today, thanks to the actions of the Conservatives, that figure stands at near 50%. Never forget that it was the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) who described the idea of the UK getting to 40% renewables as “pie in the sky”.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I had to correct the right hon. Lady’s predecessor on the point she has just repeated. Her mistake is quite basic, confusing electricity and energy. The Guido Fawkes blog—not an institution I often praise—pointed this out when her predecessor made this mistake. What I actually said—it comes from David Laws’ memoirs—was that it was pie in the sky to say we could have 40% of our energy provided by renewables. Currently, the figure is 18%. The Secy of State’s remark is inaccurate and wrong, and I would be grateful if she withdrew it.
Claire Coutinho
I will happily go and look at that, and take that point on board, but I will say that it sticks with the trend of the right hon. Gentleman talking our energy and power down.
Edward Miliband
I will read from David Laws’ memoirs. During the coalition talks, I said,
“all this stuff about getting 40% of energy production”—
energy production—
“from renewables by 2020 is just pie in the sky.”
Energy production from renewables is currently just 18%. I would be grateful if the right hon. Lady corrected the record.
Claire Coutinho
As I said, I will happily look at that, but the right hon. Gentleman has made comments about nuclear—
Edward Miliband
I ask the Secretary of State for the third time. She claims that I said that it was “pie in the sky” that 40% of our electricity could come from renewables. I did not say that, and I have pointed out to her the exact quote, where I talk about 40% of energy coming from renewables. When one has said something inaccurate about another hon. Member in the House, the right thing to do is not to just keep reading the Conservative campaign headquarters lines, but to correct the record.
Claire Coutinho
As I said, I am happy to do the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy of withdrawing on this occasion, but I would also suggest that he correct the record himself about the fact that he said we needed no new nuclear in the past.
Now that I am allowed to move on, let me say that energy security means national security, and that means powering Britain from Britain and making sure we never have to worry again about generating enough power to keep the lights on or heat our homes. We saw what happened last year when Putin weaponised energy, and the full impact his illegal war in Ukraine had on energy bills for households around the world. I am proud that the Government stepped in with an unprecedented level of support, paying around half of people’s energy bills. With continued global instability, I know that households are anxious about the coming winter. That is why we have the energy price guarantee until April 2024 and why we will always protect the most vulnerable in society with targeted support such as the winter fuel payment, cost of living payments and the warm home discount.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
This Gracious Speech takes place against a backdrop of three crises facing our country: the worst cost of living crisis in memory; the long-term failure of our economy to work for working people, with stagnant growth over a decade; and the climate and nature crisis we see all around us. The question at the heart of this debate is whether the Government’s legislative programme unveiled earlier this week in any way meets the scale of those challenges. The resounding answer is no. I am sure the Government think that they are being punished by the voters because the crises this country faces are so big, and that is probably true, but it is also because the politics they offer is so small. The King’s Speech demonstrates that in abundance and nowhere is that more true than on climate and energy.
Here we are, the last King’s Speech before the next general election and the Government release a two-clause political stunt of a Bill. They released it on Monday, during the worst cost of living crisis for generations, with energy bills still double what they were three years ago. Millions of people across our country—all of our constituents—are wondering what the Government are going to offer. On the day of the announcement, the Energy Secretary was asked a simple question by an interviewer: “Will it make a difference to energy bills?” For millions watching, surely the answer had to be yes, because, after all, that is what her job is all about. But this was her answer:
“it wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down, that’s not what we are saying”.
I commend the Energy Secretary for her outburst of candour. In a Government of fake news, it is good to have the occasional warrior for the truth.
Claire Coutinho
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that I said it would also help fund renewable energy? Does he disagree with the view that a future with renewable energy would help to bring bills down?
Edward Miliband
I think that that is what we call wriggling.
As I was saying, I commend the Energy Secretary on her outburst of candour. She is right—she is telling it like it is—and, by the way, she is in good company. Let me read this to the House:
“MYTH Extracting more North Sea gas lowers prices. FACT UK production isn't large enough to…impact the global price of gas.”
Who said that? Not somebody on this side of the House. [Interruption.] No, not a former Chancellor. It was the current chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), when he was the Energy Minister.
So here they are, they really are going to the country and saying with a straight face, after all the pain and anguish that the British people have faced, “Here is our grand offer to you: the ‘we won’t cut your bills’ Bill.” That is the offer from the Secretary of State: “Vote Conservative, and we promise we won’t cut your energy bills.” No wonder the Back Benchers are despairing. The Government could have done so much. They could have lifted the onshore wind ban to cut energy bills, but they did not. They could have legislated for a proper programme of energy efficiency to cut bills, but they did not. [Interruption.] I will happily give way to the Energy Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary if he would like to intervene.
Edward Miliband
Never mind then. Keep quiet.
The Government could have legislated to change planning rules to speed up renewables and cut energy bills, but they did not. They do not seem to realise how tin-eared, how out of touch, how absurd they look.
So how did we end up with this Bill? The hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who was not allowed to intervene, thinks it is about energy security, and that is what the Secretary of State said. The truth is, however, that she is trying to peddle an illusion, and I suspect that she knows it. Fossil fuels, with their markets controlled by petro-states and dictators and their price set internationally, cannot give us energy security. That is the obvious basic lesson of the past two years. Whether gas is produced in the North sea or imported from abroad, we pay the same price. How much did we import from Russia at the beginning of the crisis? It was 5% —but we were the worst hit country in western Europe, not because of our imports from Russia but because of the way in which the price is set on the international market.
I cannot put it any better than the National Infrastructure Commission, which said just three weeks ago:
“Reliance on fossil fuels means exposure to geopolitical shocks that impact the price of these internationally traded commodities.”
We have had North sea licensing for the last 40 years in this country. If more of it were the answer, the British people would not have faced the pain that they have. According to Energy UK, new oil and gas licences
“will not lower customer bills or significantly improve the UK’s energy security.”
David Duguid
The right hon. Gentleman made a very good point earlier about the difference between the percentage of renewables for electricity and the percentage of renewables for energy overall, including heat and transport. Does he acknowledge that the United Kingdom is currently 75% dependent on oil and gas, and does he agree with the members of the Climate Change Committee, who have stated that themselves, and who have predicted that by 2050, when we get to net zero, the proportion will still be about 20%?
Edward Miliband
I think the Climate Change Committee is actually saying that its most ambitious scenario, which we should be aiming for, is for us to cut the use of gas by 90%. Are we going to carry on using North sea oil and gas? The question for the hon. Gentleman, and for the whole House, is this: do we choose, for the future, to carry on drilling every last drop? That is the Government’s policy, in contravention of all the scientific advice, which is that we will end up in a 3° world—needing billions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy to bring about that investment through persuasion, and diverting investment from the private sector. Personally, I do not think that that is the right choice.
The lesson of this crisis is one that the Government should have learnt, and one that other countries around the world have learnt: the only way to get energy security is to sprint for clean power. That is why the Government’s onshore wind ban is such a disaster. That is why their offshore wind auction is such a disaster. That is why their energy efficiency failures are such a disaster. This Bill neither protects us on price nor gives us energy security.
Here is the thing, the Bill is not motivated by millions of people lying awake at night, worrying about the cost of living crisis; it is motivated by a Prime Minister lying awake at night, worrying about the Conservative party crisis. The interesting thing is that this Bill was planned well before the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) became Energy Secretary. It is the last desperate throw of the dice by what we might call the No. 10 galaxy brains, to use climate change as what they call a “wedge issue.” They say this to the newspapers all the time. Series 1 of this new strategy was aired in September, when the party of Churchill and Thatcher became the peddlers of wacky conspiracy theories they found on the internet: abolishing the mythical seven bins; ending the imaginary threat of compulsory car sharing; saying no to invented conspiracy theories on 15-minute cities; and fighting the fictional meat tax. And now we have a sequel. No longer a few throw-away conspiracy theories, this is now the central strategy of their legislative programme.
Members should not take my word for it. It is what the Prime Minister’s advisers brief to the papers day after day. One paper I read on Monday reported that the Prime Minister wants to “weaponise climate change” as a wedge issue. Where the British people see an energy crisis forcing up their bills, the Government see a wedge issue. Where the British people ask how they can have liveable towns and cities with good transport, the Government see a wedge issue. Where the British people worry about the effect of the climate crisis on their kids and grandkids, the Government see a wedge issue. The point is that the Government cannot really deny it, because they know this is what they are saying every day. “We think there is a big opportunity for the Conservative party to try to create division on climate change.” That is why the Prime Minister uses words like “eco-zealots.” It is all very transparent. They are locked in the boot of a strategy. Whether they agree with it or not, that is what is happening.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
This is the problem. The right hon. Gentleman calls it a wedge issue but, in his own language, he boils it down to a binary issue. It is not a binary question of whether we have oil and gas or whether we have renewables; it is about an energy mix. Does he realise that, last year, there were 260 days—by my maths, that is getting on for nearly three quarters of the year—when there was not enough wind to generate enough power for this nation’s needs? Whether he likes it or not, we will need to have an energy mix. It is something that he just does not seem to understand.
Edward Miliband
I am afraid that all the hon. Gentleman is pointing out is the Government’s failure to go fast enough in driving towards renewables. Of course we need a mix of energy, but this is the question for the House and the country: do we decide that drilling every last drop, which is the Government’s position and which would be a climate disaster, is the right strategy? Or do we decide that the right way to go is home-grown clean power? We say it is home-grown clean power.
The problem is that all the nonsense the Government are coming out with really matters, and it worries me. By the way, I think it will be an electoral disaster for them, and we already see that because the intelligent Conservatives are asking, “Why are we doing all this?” Members on both sides of the House did this together. We built a consensus on climate over the past 20 years, to work across parties and not to weaponise it. People look at America and say. “Well, America has a culture war on climate. Thank goodness we do not have that in Britain.” That was the case until this Prime Minister—not the previous Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister before her—decided to do it.
On the day of the Prime Minister’s climate U-turns, the Home Secretary had a licence to go out and say that the danger of climate action is that it will “bankrupt” the country. The Home Secretary freelances on most issues, but on this issue she is actually speaking for the Prime Minister, because it is echoed by other Cabinet Ministers. This is a massive retreat from the position of both parties for two decades, that leadership on climate is not somehow a danger to our economy but is the way to seize and build our economic future. They have opened the door to the old, discredited idea that we can choose either our economy or the climate, but not both.
It is not just a retreat from the consensus; it is a retreat from reality. The reality is that there is a global race, with countries seeking to go further and faster to create the jobs of the future. No wonder business is horrified. Just last Monday, Amanda Blanc, the chief executive of Aviva, warned about the Government’s commitment to unlimited oil and gas drilling. She said that our climate goals as a country are “under threat”, which
“puts at clear risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires”.
The Government try to claim that this is somehow consistent with climate leadership. I mean, come off it!
Seven hundred British climate scientists oppose the changes, and so do the International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) quoted:
“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero.”
The Government’s own net zero tsar, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is in his place, also opposes them. They appointed him to advise them on climate and energy. They said how brilliant he is, and I agree—sorry to ruin his career even further. He is a very intelligent guy. [Interruption.] He is denying it. He has great ideas, and what did he say?
“There is no such thing as a new net zero oilfield.”
Those are not my words, and they are not the words of eco-zealots or Just Stop Oil; they are the words of the right hon. Gentleman, who sits on the Government Benches. He signed the net zero target into law, for goodness’ sake. We have to grow up.
In contrast to the right hon. Gentleman, we have the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, whom I like —[Interruption.] I do. We have worked together on climate, but I will now say something not so nice about him. This is what he said yesterday:
“There is nothing fundamentally wrong with oil and gas, it’s emissions from oil and gas that are the problem”.
For goodness’ sake—what does that even mean? Here we are: the people who know what they are talking about do not speak for the Conservative party, and the people who speak for the Conservative party do not know what they are talking about.
I can tell the Secretary of State and her colleagues that this strategy is doomed to fail. The British people do not want a Government who say, “We are going to weaponise the climate crisis.” They do not want a Government who say, “We are desperate. We are behind in the polls”—I remember that feeling—“and we therefore have to turn this into a wedge issue.” They want a Government who will cut bills and tackle the climate crisis. All the Government are doing day after day with all this nonsense is proving that they are not the answer.
What would a Labour King’s Speech have done? Today, every family is paying £180 more on their bill as a result of the onshore wind ban that has been in place since 2015. The Government could have lifted the ban but, two months ago, they did not. They offered a weak, half-hearted compromise that will make no difference. As RenewableUK says,
“the planning system is still stacked against onshore wind”.
Why not lift the onshore wind ban? Why is it harder to build an onshore wind farm than an incinerator? The Government had to shell out billions of pounds in subsidies when the energy crisis hit. I think those subsidies would have been something like £5 billion less if we had not had the onshore wind ban. Then we have offshore wind and the disastrous auction, which added £2 billion to bills, according to the industry.
A Labour King’s Speech would legislate to lift the ban on onshore wind, to speed up the planning process and to sort out the grid, so we can decarbonise our power system by 2030. Clean power is the foundation, and next comes energy efficiency. I am afraid that here the Government have utterly failed, and their complacency is extraordinary. This is what the Climate Change Committee said about the whole sector:
“since 2010 progress has stalled, with no further substantive reductions in emissions.”
It has been a shambolic 13 years. We all know the litany: the disaster of the green deal, the green homes grant, David Cameron’s “cut the green crap”. Insulation measures were running at 1.6 million in 2010, and last year—any offers?—they were running at 78,000, which is 20 times lower. A Labour Government would do what the country is crying out for and have a proper plan, funded by public investment, ramping up to £6 billion a year to provide support for home insulation and low-carbon heating.
Next, let us talk about the green economy and building our economic future. The Government are never short of boasting about their record, but we are actually eighth out of eight major countries in Energy UK’s projections for renewable investment up to 2030. And get this: in the seven months after the passage of the US Inflation Reduction Act, which the Government do not like, the US created almost 10 times more green jobs than the UK created in the previous seven years. So in seven months, the US created 10 times more jobs than we did in seven years. What is the Government’s response to the Inflation Reduction Act? They say it is “dangerous”, “distortive” and “protectionist”. This is not some accident; they do believe that this is a role Government. I am afraid to say that that is a recipe for Britain losing the global race.
What would Labour do differently? We would have a national wealth fund, not with one-off, ad-hoc investments, but a proper plan. We would be investing in ports, our steel industry and electric battery factories. We would also have a new publicly owned energy company, GB Energy, which I am glad the Secretary of State mentioned. It would be partnering the private sector in the industries of the future. The Government object to GB Energy, because they say that we do not need public ownership of energy in Britain. I have to say to the House that the Government may not realise it, but we already have public ownership of energy in Britain, with EDF, Vattenfall, Ørsted and Statkraft. They are all companies wholly or partly owned by states—foreign states. They own our industry. In fact, nearly half of our offshore wind industry is owned by foreign states—by state-owned foreign companies. So the Government take the extraordinary position that it is okay for state-run companies to invest in Britain, so long as they are not British state-owned companies; let French, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian citizens get the wealth from our energy industry, just not British citizens. That is the Government’s position.
This makes me a nerd, but let me say that the late Ian Gilmour wrote an autobiography—[Interruption.] It is not that that makes me a nerd. [Laughter.] He wrote an autobiography about his time in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, and some here will know that its title was “Dancing with Dogma”. That is what we are seeing here, because the Government are in favour of public ownership of our energy assets, so long as it is by foreign states. That does not sound very Conservative to me.
GB Energy would be investing in the industries of the future, partnering local communities to create jobs and wealth for Britain. A Labour King’s Speech would have contained an energy independence Act to make all of this possible: clean power by 2030 to cut bills; a proper energy efficiency plan; a national wealth fund; and GB Energy. That is an energy Bill equal to the scale of the crises we face.
Edward Miliband
I am going to finish.
The Prime Minister has been in the job for more than a year and he has been rumbled, just as his party has been in power for 13 years and it has been rumbled. For all his talk of change, the public know, as does the House, that he cannot bring the change this country needs. The Government’s pathetic, small legislative programme shows it, and they all know it. They are out of ideas and out of time, and the only solution for our country is for them to be out of office.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I warmly welcome this historic King’s Speech and the “clean energy superpower” theme of today’s debate. As the House will imagine, I will also look at the broader context within which this King’s Speech has to be viewed.
Before I go on to that, I wish to pick up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). I did agree with one thing he said: we should not play politics with climate change. I do not think the people we represent want that, but he just gave us a 20-minute masterclass in just that. I hope that he will reflect on his speech, because to be playing such petty politics with such an important issue was not worthy of the work that I know he has done over many years. It is just not credible for him to simply dismiss the past 10 years of achievements, as he did in one fell swoop. I am sure that on reflection he will wish that he had spent more time acknowledging what this Government have done.
Dame Maria Miller
If he does not, people will judge him all the more badly for that.
As I said, I warmly welcome this historic King’s Speech, which comes at a time when the challenges our country faces are starting to crystallise. We have had three major impacts to our economy in the past few years, and the doorstep conversations we were having at the time of the last general election in 2019 were nothing like the ones I am having with my constituents now. Whether we are dealing with the impact of the war in Ukraine, the appalling situation currently in Israel, our leaving the European Union or the impact of the global pandemic, the things that people are talking about now are interest rates and inflation—issues that have not been on the lips of our electorate for a number of years. I am pleased to see that the Government have understood this challenge and are looking at the long-term challenges our country now faces, rather than simply looking at what has happened in the past 10 years. We need to look forward to make sure that we are planning for the very different set of challenges that our economy faces. The King’s Speech will be just the beginning of that process.
When we consider clean energy, it is worth looking first at the track record of this Government. We were the first major economy to legislate for a net zero target, and since 1990 we have cut emissions by 48%. One could be forgiven for not understanding that, given the right hon. Gentleman’s initial contribution. We are aiming to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030. Until we start to agree that there is success we can talk about, the electorate will continue to be confused. When we look at the progress that is being made and applaud it, we can then start to plan properly for the future.
In the first quarter of this year, 48% of our energy came from renewables, which was an increase from just 7% when the Conservatives took power in 2010. Perhaps some of the questions the right hon. Gentleman should be answering are why we were in such a relatively poor situation in 2010 and why more had not been done by the previous Administration. We are now an acknowledged world leader in offshore wind. I will address that later in my speech, because we could be working more with our friends, particularly countries such as Canada, to see how we can make sure that our renewable energy goes from strength to strength.