Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim Shannon(6 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
The hon. Member and I both have constituency interests in this matter, and he is right to say that. None the less, I say gently to him that no action was taken on this for a very, very long time—indeed, since privatisation. This Government took action in the Budget in less than five months. That is the difference. I have made it absolutely clear that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is now turning her excellent attention to the BCSSS.
Jim Shannon
May I welcome what the Government and the Minister are doing on this matter? This good scheme takes care of an injustice from some 30 years ago. There are those in Northern Ireland who worked in the mines, and their families are still concerned about this issue. Can we have a timescale for the completion of the work on the British coal staff superannuation scheme, which some of them would have qualified for?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am glad that he, too—like everyone else in this House, according to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry—has constituents who will be benefiting from this work. The best I can say to him on this issue, which has now been rightly raised a number of times, is that the Minister for Industry will have heard the calls made with real urgency, which I think we all recognise, and will act accordingly.
COP29
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim Shannon(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks absolutely the right question. That is the work that we will be undertaking with Brazil and other like-minded countries in the year ahead. Next year marks a very important moment: we have to set our nationally determined contributions for 2035, five years on from the last time the world did so. This is such an important moment, because it is how we need to get back on track for keeping temperature rises down. We will be straining every sinew to work with others to make that happen.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to hear the Secretary of State committing to a strategy and a plan that looks forward, even though we may have some questions about it. My fear has always been about the funding that has been granted, which is incredibly substantial. How will the Secretary of State ensure that that huge pot of funding is used to achieve the necessary aims, not siphoned off or lost in the process? I say this bearing in mind that pushing a pen around and making a way through red tape can be a very costly endeavour. That money needs to go to the projects that make a difference. How can that be guaranteed before we allocate any more of our hard-pressed taxpayers’ money?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. As much as developing countries wanted the biggest possible sum to support them, they were as worried about the quality of finance and their access to funds as they were about the quantum. Time and again, I heard from developing countries that they wait years to access the available funds, so ensuring that they are spent on the right things and are accessible will be crucial work for the months and years ahead.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim Shannon(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
The beauty of carbon budgets and the system that was introduced when I was last in government—to be fair, it was carried on by the previous Government of the past 14 years—is that they do at least in theory constrain what the Government do. It is very important that we take carbon budgets seriously in our plans. The plans we inherited from the last Government were way off track for meeting our carbon budgets, which is what this Government will do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Climate change is real; it is not a myth. The quicker that everyone understands that, the better. Can I pose a question to the Secretary of State on rewilding? There are some suggestions among experts that rewilding by planting trees on moor and heather might not be the most constructive way of utilising rewilding. Has he had an opportunity to look at the issue of rewilding on moors and heather, which I understand that many experts think is detrimental?
Ed Miliband
I take the hon. Gentleman seriously on these issues, and I undertake to write to him or to have one of the Ministers write to him. I make the general point that rewilding and nature-based solutions are an essential part of tackling the climate crisis.
Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim Shannon(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
And the final word goes to Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Maybe not the final word, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that will be for the Secretary of State. I welcome the statement, in which he rightly underlined that anybody who ignores carbon capture, use and storage does so at their peril, and the Government’s commitment to carbon capture. While the amount set aside is incredible, so too is the requirement that every penny brings an achievement. How will the Secretary of State ensure that each region of the United Kingdom is involved in this net gain? I say to him gently that Northern Ireland is not mentioned in his statement; I am sure he will address that issue. There must be accountability to ensure the realisation of environmental goals, rather than simply the aspiration of achieving them.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope he has a conversation with his right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—[Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member does not want to talk to him right now. A good point to end on is the fact that, of course, jobs will be created in certain parts of the United Kingdom, but the measures announced will benefit supply chains across the whole United Kingdom. This Government look forward to ensuring that happens.
Great British Energy Bill
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim ShannonThursday 5th September 2024
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I will make a bit more progress.
I had the chance to visit the Lawrence Weston turbine in Bristol, which Members may know about. It is England’s tallest onshore wind turbine, and it is 100% owned by the local community, powering at least 3,000 local homes and reinvesting revenues into local projects.
Ed Miliband
I have caught the eye of an infrequent contributor to this House, so I will give way.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for what he is putting forward. It seems logical for the UK to manufacture this process, rather than others doing it for us. The question for my constituents, I say respectfully to the Secretary of State, is, what will the price of energy be at the end? A LucidTalk poll for National Energy Action evaluated the impact of rising energy prices on households in Northern Ireland. It found that 41% of households were spending more than 10% of their income on their home energy costs. How can we make sure that my constituents, and indeed all our constituents, can have energy they can pay for?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is a massive concern for all our constituents, and Great British Energy is a crucial tool to bring down prices for our constituents. The truth is that every Member in this House has to make a judgment on this. Do they believe that business as usual, staying on fossil fuels, will give us the energy security we need? We discussed this in the House on Tuesday. The truth is that we had the worst cost of living crisis in generations because of our exposure to fossil fuels. We are seeing prices rise again on 1 October, not because of Government decisions but because of our dependence on international gas markets. The argument for clean energy 15 years ago was a climate argument; it is now as much an energy security argument as a climate argument.
Clean Energy Superpower Mission
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim Shannon(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim Shannon(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim Shannon(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. At every step of the way, the Government have had the chance to act, and they have not done so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The figures for Northern Ireland are very interesting: 241,000 people—13% of people—in Northern Ireland are in poverty. Some 17% of all children, 14% of all pensioners and 11% of the whole working-age population are in poverty. Those figures scare me; do they scare the right hon. Gentleman?
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have been around politics for a long time, as the House knows, but I cannot remember—nobody in the House can remember—facing the kind of emergency that we do currently.
The spring statement was the most recent chance for the Chancellor to redeem himself; it was just days before the April energy price rise came into effect. It was apparent to everyone across this House and in the country that what he had offered was woefully inadequate. People were literally pleading with him to do more on energy bills, but he just doubled down on his failure. He has had three chances in the past seven months, and none of his responses has been equal to the emergency. The truth about this Chancellor is that at every step of the way he has been in denial, slow to act and wholly out of touch in his response.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill
Debate between Ed Miliband and Jim ShannonWednesday 3rd June 2020
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 View all Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 June 2020 - (3 Jun 2020)
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position and wish him well. I have a bit of concern about what I refer to as predatory companies, which look for companies that are probably heading towards insolvency and see them as an opportunity to gain something. I wonder whether it is possible to ensure in the Bill that such predatory companies that would prey on those in trouble, of which there are many, are prevented from taking over an asset that is probably solvent in the long term but is not in the short term.
Edward Miliband
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I once used the word predatory in relation to companies and it was rather controversial, but I think the consensus may have changed. [Interruption.] Government Members are saying it has not; it was worth a try. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important substantive point on which I think Members from all parties can agree, and it goes to the width and breadth of this provision: we have to make sure that companies cannot use it as a way to take their employees for a ride. I know from my conversations with the Secretary of State and the Minister that the intention to make sure that that does not happen is shared throughout the House, but we have to give expression to it in the Bill, and I hope the Government will indeed do so.
Let me turn to some things that are not in the Bill—