Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Ed Miliband and Toby Perkins

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend anticipates my point about how we build the supply chains, and about the lessons we have learned from what state-owned companies in other countries have done to help catalyse a supply chain of jobs and to work with the private sector.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Ed Miliband]

I will give way one more time before making some more progress.

[Mr Perkins]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. We heard the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) suggest a few moments ago that things were going wonderfully under the Conservative Government, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the Climate Change Committee warned a few weeks ago that only a third of the emissions reductions that we need to achieve the 2030 target are currently backed by a credible plan? Is the reality not that we need a step change? Thank God we have a Labour Government to deliver it.

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is part of what this Government have done. In less than two months, we have overturned the onshore wind ban, consented large amounts of solar power and, on Tuesday, had the most successful renewables auction in British history.

Contracts for Difference

Debate between Ed Miliband and Toby Perkins

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation since the election. I look forward to our exchanges in this House. I say him to gently that the crucial first phase of Opposition, in my experience, is having a bit of humility to admit where they have got things wrong. I do not deny that some of the things that the previous Government did were right, but quite a lot of what they did was wrong—for example, the nine-year ban on the cheapest, cleanest form of power, the blocking of solar projects across the country and the crashing of the offshore wind market, which led to the worst energy bills crisis in generations. That is their legacy, and at some point some of the leadership candidates will have to face up to that.

Let me deal with the hon. Member’s specific points. If I may say so respectfully, I feel like he answered some of his own questions. He draws attention to the fact that energy bills are rising from 1 October. He is right about that, and that is deeply regrettable. Why is that happening? Because we are exposed to international gas markets. This is about power that we do not control. Every solar panel that we do not put up, every onshore wind turbine that we do not erect, and every piece of grid that we do not build leaves us more exposed. The Conservative party is in a dilemma on this, because it is facing both ways, but it has to face up to that fact. Of course we will have a proper and orderly transition in the North sea, keeping existing fields open for their lifetime and having a just transition for the workforce, but the idea that the Conservative party and some of its erstwhile friends are clinging to—that fossil fuels will get us out of this—is completely belied by all the facts and the crisis that we went through.

The shadow Minister says—and I agree with him—that we need to have jobs in this country. He says it as if he finds it hard to remember who has been in power for the past 14 years. It is terrible, he says, that everything is being produced elsewhere. He is right. Germany has almost twice as many renewable energy jobs per capita as the UK. Sweden has almost three times as many, but, most interestingly, Denmark, with its publicly owned energy company, Ørsted, has almost four times as many.

The hon. Gentleman asks about Great British Energy. We will debate that matter on Thursday, but one reason why we went to the electorate on this point and were endorsed on it is that, unless we have a publicly owned national champion, all the evidence is that the jobs will go elsewhere. That is part of having a basic industrial policy.

The hon. Member talks about solar energy, but, again, he has to make up his mind about where he is on this. He says that he agrees that we need clean energy in this country, and that we have to get off the international gas markets, but the problem is that the Conservatives duck every difficult decision. Then he asks about undergrounding. The Conservatives were in power for 14 years, so they had plenty of time to do the undergrounding of all the cabling. Why did they not do that? It is because they know that it is multiple times more expensive. Now they come along, less than two months after the general election, and say that it is time for some undergrounding of the grid. For goodness’ sake! I have experience of being Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to have some private tutorials on how to be in opposition.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is great to see my right hon. Friend in such ebullient spirits. I have to say that his enthusiasm can only be matched by that of the industry, which today has roundly welcomed the decision that he took back in July to increase the size of this auction. That demonstrates that, if we have a Government who are consistent, positive and ambitious, the industry will respond and will back their plans. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the great start that he has made will be continued with a consistent plan under this Government, so that businesses can invest for the long term, knowing that the Government will always back them?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes a typically eloquent point. This is about a partnership with private industry. The truth is that much of the investment that we need for the clean power mission will come from the private sector, and I suspect that there is cross-party agreement on that. We on the Government Benches have a difference with the Opposition, though, because we believe that a lot of that comes from breaking down the barriers to planning and grid infrastructure, which is a massive challenge for supply chains and skills. There is also a role for what we call catalytic public investment, levering in extra private investment.

The other point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. There is huge enthusiasm in the private sector and industry more generally for this sense of mission for the country. We want this mission to involve every business that has an interest in this area, and I believe that we can achieve that.

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Debate between Ed Miliband and Toby Perkins

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will perhaps say something personal about that, but I say to the hon. Gentleman—this is very important, because President Trump is trying to sow confusion on this issue—that President Obama’s action was about the visa waiver scheme in relation to those countries. It was most emphatically not about a blanket ban on individuals from those countries coming to the US.

The countries selected for the ban are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen. There is no question but that those countries, in their different ways, are extremely dangerous places, but does a blanket ban on people from those countries make any sense? In my view, it does not. If we read the Executive order—it is worth reading it, along with the annotations to it—we see that it falls apart at the first hurdle. Section 1 of the order, right up at the front, states the rationale for the President’s proposals. What does it cite? It cites the 9/11 attacks on America—absolutely appalling events that shocked us all—but none of the 9/11 attackers came from the countries on which the ban has been imposed. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others are not on the list, so the very justification offered in the Executive order frankly falls apart.

Nobody is against the proper vetting of people from those countries—the strongest security checks—but a blanket ban cannot be the answer. I do not think I can do better than to read the words of Chancellor Merkel, who said earlier:

“The necessary and decisive fight against terrorism does not justify a general suspicion against people of a certain belief—in this case people of Muslim belief or people from a certain country. That way of thinking is against my interpretation of the basic tenets of international refugee support and co-operation.”

Chancellor Merkel put it incredibly well. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, we have seen the dreadful results of this blanket ban playing out over the past few days.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the statesmanship that has been shown by Chancellor Merkel was not shown in our name by our Prime Minister this weekend?

[Edward Miliband]

The intention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I is to maintain as much unity as we can in this debate so that we send a clear message. I would have liked the Prime Minister to be much clearer, much earlier, and I would still like a clearer message from the Government.

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Debate between Ed Miliband and Toby Perkins

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not a clash of civilisations. The vast, vast majority of Muslims all around the world abhor ISIL and its activities.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on what has been said so far today. It is vital for the sense to be felt that the entire House is behind our troops when they are out performing in this way.

My right hon. Friend has spoken powerfully about the fact that this is not a war on Islam, and we are all very conscious of the scars that remain from the past. Will he say a little more about what he, as Leader of the Opposition, will do to ensure that our Muslim communities here recognise that this is not a war on them, and that it is absolutely about protecting Muslims as well as people back here in the United Kingdom?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I will play my part—as I am sure will he and other Members across the House—in setting out the case and explaining the basis of action, which is to protect innocent Muslims in Iraq who are under terrible threat from ISIL day after day. That is why there is such urgency in this case.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Debate between Ed Miliband and Toby Perkins

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert).

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Debate between Ed Miliband and Toby Perkins

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who is new to this House, that this is an opportunity for the House of Commons to speak with one voice on these issues. That is what we should do today.

I was about to say that the issues we are discussing are about the integrity of people working at News International. The Chair of this House’s Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport says that he was misled, the head of the Press Complaints Commission says that she was lied to by News International, James Murdoch has admitted serious wrongdoing in the company, and there are now, of course, allegations that News International knew that phone hacking was widespread as long ago as 2007.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On the subject of the individuals to whom my right hon. Friend just referred, one thing that shocked many people as much as anything was the fact that on Sunday and Monday, when Rupert Murdoch arrived, he said that his No. 1 priority was Rebekah Brooks—not the Dowlers, not the families of the victims of 7/7, and not the families of dead servicemen. Rebekah Brooks was his No. 1 priority. Does that not show why he has a complete responsibility to come to this House and answer its questions?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Throughout this process Mr Murdoch has seemed to show no recognition of the scale of abuse of the trust of the people of this country, whom he claims daily in his newspapers to represent and whose voice he claims to understand. My hon. Friend is totally right.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Ed Miliband and Toby Perkins

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

That is an extraordinary statement to make on the Floor of the House. A set of commercial negotiations was carried out with Sheffield Forgemasters. The decision was signed off by the permanent secretaries of DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as a value-for-money loan, but now the right hon. Gentleman questions that.

The right hon. Gentleman’s explanation is different from that offered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that the loan represented value for money, but the Government did not have the money. The Secretary of State is not only wrong to oppose the loan, but confused about the reason why it is not being offered. I am afraid that the Government are hampering the green revolution that we need.

[Toby Perkins]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that a Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury came to the House to tell us the decision about Sheffield Forgemasters, and that a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State is supporting that decision today, is just another sign of how the Conservative Government are using the Liberal Democrats as a fig leaf, which will shame the leader of the Liberal Democrats in his Sheffield constituency?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend is completely right. He has experience of booting out Liberal Democrats locally—something that will happen in many constituencies at the next general election. It is blinkered short termism: that is the only way to describe what they have done.

What is the assessment of the Budget from a green point of view? Friends of the Earth says that the

“June Budget does little to suggest”

that the coalition will keep the

“promise to be the greenest Government ever.”

That is not a very good start, but I want to reassure the Secretary of State by telling him that there is praise for the Budget from an unlikely quarter. Roger Helmer, a Conservative MEP and a well known climate change denier, quite likes the Budget and says:

“Green lobbyists are whingeing that ‘this is the least green Budget for years’. Brilliant! Well done George. Maybe we’ve come to our senses”.

I have to tell the Secretary of State that for the first Budget in which he was involved to have congratulations from Roger Helmer and condemnation from Friends of the Earth is not a very good start.

The second test we should apply to the Budget is that of fairness. Is it a fair Budget or not? Let us be clear: as well as going beyond the decisions that the Liberal Democrats advocated for the first year, the Budget goes well beyond the pace of deficit reduction that they recommended. To sustain the Secretary of State’s argument, we are talking about not only cuts now, but a much faster timetable. He shakes his head, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis published at the time of the election shows that the Liberal Democrats had set out exactly the same pace of deficit reduction in 2014-15 as we had, but this Budget goes beyond that, with £30 billion of extra cuts in spending and the rise in value added tax.

The question at the heart of the Budget debate over the past 48 hours is where do the cuts fall? Who bears the burden? That is the question that Lloyd George asked in this House years ago. The truth is becoming clearer: this is a regressive Budget, not a fair one. The Chancellor claimed in his speech that the Budget was fair, and I think it important to quote him exactly. These are not my words, but those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:

“Overall, everyone will pay something, but the people at the bottom of the income scale will pay proportionally less than the people at the top. It is a progressive Budget.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 180.]

That is simply not the case. That was exposed yesterday by the IFS. When one looks at the Budget measures, one sees that it is regressive, not progressive. According to the IFS, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said, as a result of the measures in the Budget the poorest 10% will pay four times more as a proportion of their income than the richest. I repeat: four times more.