Energy Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Barry Gardiner

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I rise to speak to amendments 148 and 150 in my name, and to amendment 179 in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Under the large combustion plant directive, 8 GW of old coal has to close by 2015. Of that, 6 GW has already gone, with the remaining 2 GW being considered for conversion to biomass. That leaves 20 GW of old coal set to stay on the system. Of that, approximately 15 GW is being considered for all options, which means that it could be opted into the integrated emissions directive, investing in air filters for NOx and SOx in order to comply. This plant would then not have to close in 2023, and would naturally seek to maximise its return on that capital cost by continuing to provide base load generation capacity unconstrained by the EPS.

Amendment 148 would ensure that where substantial pollution abatement equipment properly dealing with the oxides of sulphur, nitrogen, heavy metals or particles is fitted to the generating station in such a way that makes it compliant with the EU IED while still emitting above 450 grams per kWh, the plant would then be brought under the EPS framework. Without the amendment, many plants will succeed in circumventing the EPS, which would undermine the EMR, the UK’s carbon budgets, the incentive to invest in CCS and the coalition agreement, which committed the Department of Energy and Climate Change to introducing an EPS as a backstop to unabated coal. Remember, these old coal plants have already recouped their capital costs. Allowing them to avoid the EPS cannot therefore be justified, and I dispute what the Minister said about the importance of not accepting the amendment in order to allow new coal to recoup its costs.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that coal has a huge role to play in the energy mix of this country? It must, however, be on the basis of burning coal cleanly, using carbon capture and storage. The Government must get a move on and provide the finances to ensure that that happens as soon as possible.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am in 100% agreement with my hon. Friend. I am happy to put on the record that coal is the energy of the future for the next 40 years; not necessarily in this country, but around the world. Unless we develop CCS and export it to such countries as China and India, which are going to be using coal, the future will be bleak for all of us. It is imperative to incentivise CCS, which is why amendment 179, in conjunction with amendments 148 and 150, is so important.

The central purpose of the grandfathering provision in the EPS is to enable investors in newly consented plant to recover their costs prior to being forced to fit CCS and/or limit their running hours. The grandfathering date in the Bill as it stands is simply not credible. The EPS currently allows unabated gas to operate as base load until 2045. This is not plausible in a carbon-constrained world in which international commitments to reduce carbon are more likely to increase than otherwise. More to the point, grandfathering to 2045 reduces the policy levers available to government, and is likely to reduce the demand for CCS for coal and seriously undermine the credibility of CCS for gas. The EPS is the backstop; it is a very different policy lever from the decarbonisation target. As such, it should retain flexibility to account for policy failure. I have not sought, therefore, to amend the level of the EPS, because in a situation of extreme policy failure, we might need to continue to use some of the unabated gas into the late 2020s. The inclusion of a 2030 decarbonisation target should reduce that risk significantly, but it would remain a risk, and one for which the EPS would have to account.

Amendment 150 proposes a 15-year window up to 2029 providing an adequate commercial time frame and aligning itself with the 2030 power sector decarbonisation trajectory. It would provide increased investor confidence by being more credible than the current 2045, and by setting a shorter grandfathering period, new gas plant would be incentivised to begin operation sooner, assisting efforts to address energy security concerns in this decade.

Amendment 179 would remedy the problem of the Energy Bill’s requiring CCS projects to operate under the EPS regime from day one. The amendment would apply the EPS to CCS projects only once an agreed and clearly defined commissioning and proving window had passed. That approach would remove an unnecessary regulatory burden for project developers and lower the cost for consumers, as the EPS risk would not need to be factored into the CFD strike price, and would achieve the Government’s aim—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

2. How many households no longer eligible for child benefit have opted not to receive it.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

8. How many households no longer eligible for child benefit have opted not to receive it.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

The Government estimate that in the 2013-14 tax year over 1 million out of 8 million families are affected by the new charge. As of 24 January, over 340,000 recipients have opted not to receive the payment. The charge will raise over £1.7 billion each year to tackle the deficit.

Finance Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Barry Gardiner

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

“No cash losers”: I must say that I think that those are the most disingenuous words that I have heard in this Chamber for a great many years. I remember that in the Budget the Chancellor was not particularly keen to draw the House’s attention to this change.

In the Budget, the Chancellor glossed over the whole issue of the granny tax very quickly indeed, yet only a year before, he came to the Dispatch Box on Budget day and said that he would not hide anything—he would tell it like it was. He would tell the bad with the good. That was just a year before, but in this year’s Budget, he glossed over the granny tax altogether.

“No net losers”—how accurate is that if we look at the total picture for pensioners? For existing pensioners, the age-related allowance will be frozen. It is interesting that the year before, it was not the Chancellor, but the Prime Minister, no less, who promised that the allowance would increase in line with the retail prices index. “No net losers”—those who believed the Prime Minister’s promise to pensioners might be excused for feeling that they were losers under the change. That is what happens. People listen to what the Prime Minister says, and make their financial plans on the basis of it: “The Prime Minister promised me, so of course I can expect to have that.” Well, it did not happen, and I think that is disingenuous.

We heard in this Chamber that there are no net losers, but what about people who are about to become pensioners? Are they net losers? They certainly expected an age-related allowance, but they find that, for them, it is not frozen, but cut. We can stand here and call black white, but it is incumbent on us not to take the public for fools, and I am afraid that the speech from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) did that. I regret that, because he is not a disingenuous character—he is quite a lovable character in this House—but to say what he did is to treat people with contempt. It is treating them as though they do not understand their own affairs, when it is their own affairs—their own pennies, in many cases—that we are talking about. That hits hard.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it not a fact that 4.4 million pensioners will lose roughly £83 a year from next year, and that people who turn 65 next year could lose up to £322 a year? That implies that it is disingenuous to suggest that people are not losing out—

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The general public are outraged at the levels of bankers’ bonuses, which remain very high indeed. The Government were forced, as we are all aware, into multi-billion pound bank bail-outs during the financial crisis. Quite simply, people cannot understand why bankers and people employed in the financial institutions have been given billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at a time of great austerity.

To pay massive bonuses in the midst of a financial crisis is a national disgrace, as it is to pay massive bonuses at a time when public sector services are being destroyed and young people face an unprecedented attack via tuition fees, the abolition of the education maintenance allowance and changes in Sure Start. Last year, Barclays boss Bob Diamond and his two replacements at the head of the investment bank were paid an obscene amount of money: £28 million. The trio also received shares worth £40 million for past performance. That must have been some performance!

I have just done some calculations. The people who are now receiving redundancy notices in the public services—many council workers, nurses, doctors, police officers and the rest—would be lucky to have a bonus of £50 a week. That is £2,500 a year, £25,000 over 10 years and £125,000 over 100 years. So to make £1 million, they would have to live until they were 400. To make the £28 million that the Barclays heads were given, they would have to live to 11,200. That is highly unlikely—I am merely accentuating the point—but those figures are an absolute disgrace.

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not wish to disturb my hon. Friend’s flow, but is he aware that I was informed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority the other day that I could not raise any of my staff’s salaries, even though they have been the same for a year, because they are public servants? If I wanted to give them any reward for exceptional service, the maximum I was allowed to give was a £15 token each year for a meal. Where can anyone get a meal for £15 around here? It is absolutely disgraceful, when such sums are being given out to the bankers.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which is a great way of introducing IPSA into the debate on the Finance Bill. I think we would have agreement on that point across the House.

Let me get back to the discussion. Barclays bosses were compared to Somali pirates by one of their own shareholders, amid anger over their obscene bonuses. Shareholders lined up to vent their fury at the annual meeting, complaining that their dividends had plummeted while senior executives continued to enjoy huge pay packets. Another shareholder accused the executives of rank historical folly, saying:

“In these times of austerity the seemingly excessive payments to senior bank staff seems to show the lack of wisdom reminiscent of Marie Antoinette saying let them eat cake.”

HSBC has tried to seize the high ground by announcing a reduction in maximum bonuses for top bosses, but chief executives could still receive a package of more than £12.5 million this year. This mammoth pay deal comprises a salary of £1.25 million plus up to £7.5 million in long-term bonus shares and a possible £3.75 million annual bonus. Some reduction. That is why the bankers must pay their share, and why the Labour party are seeking this amendment to ensure that that happens.

This recession was not made in Britain; it is a global recession. Let me set the scene for a minute or so. In the decade before the financial crisis, Labour cut Britain’s national debt and Britain’s deficit. Both were lower than the amounts we inherited from the Tories. Before the financial crash we had a lower national debt than America, France, Germany or Japan. The crisis was caused by the financial institutions—by these banks. Governments and central banks were also, of course, at fault, including in Britain, where we did not see it coming and should have been tougher in regulating the banks.

The cry from those on the Conservative Benches, and from the City, for lighter regulation of the banks should have been totally ignored—and, yes, Labour should have been tougher on the banks. When the City and the Tories called for lighter regulation, we should have ignored them and been tougher still. Our priority, however, was to prevent recession turning into depression and to keep people in jobs. We always said that once the economy was growing strongly, tough decisions would be needed to get the deficit down again. The plan, as we all know, was to halve the deficit in four years, including through a continuation of Labour’s bank bonus tax.

The crisis was not the result of our spending on essential front-line services such as the NHS, schools, police, local authorities or any other public service.