Clean Energy Investment

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Adrian Bailey

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

A very important point must be put on the record: countries have different climate legislation programmes in place, but this country has never been completely out there on its own and other countries have attempted to do what we have done. There is a huge academic study of climate legislation across the world. Hundreds of countries have attempted to do what we have done—many of them very successfully. Of course we will need to take a higher burden in this country than, for instance, Poland, and that will be reflected across the whole EU target, but we cannot say that other countries have not followed us down this route. That is simply incorrect.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me just point out that I did say five minutes. We are already way over that, and long interventions do not help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this debate and on her speech. It was a privilege to serve under her in the shadow Energy team in the last Parliament, when we frequently made the case that the Government’s energy policy was ineffective and incoherent. I listened to the Secretary of State’s recent speech—the much-lauded “energy reset” speech—but my assessment of the Government’s energy policy has not changed a great deal.

The Secretary of State said she wanted an energy policy that was affordable, but the Government have banned the cheapest forms of renewables, such as onshore wind, and they have an abysmal record on energy efficiency. She said that she wanted a system that was competition-led, but—I say this as a supporter of nuclear power—Hinkley Point C is at the heart of the Government’s energy policy, and it was certainly not a competitive system that delivered that. She also said that she wanted a system that was “consumer-led”, but the most popular forms of renewables are frequently undermined by the Government while shale gas, which may have a role to play but is frankly unpopular with the British public at the moment, is always lauded as the solution to everything. So the Government’s record is not good.

There are many ways to massage the figures on energy investment; I am sure that we will hear some of them today, or simply a comparison with the past. However, the key question is whether the level of clean energy investment in the UK at the moment is sufficient to meet our needs, and the answer is no.

The situation will almost certainly get much worse today. So much of DECC’s budget has to be devoted to nuclear decommissioning that absorbing the type of departmental cuts that non-protected Government Departments will receive today will require the loss of some very effective programmes. The renewable heat incentive is such a programme, and I can almost guarantee that it will be heavily reduced today.

In addition, no assessment of this country’s clean energy investment needs can be properly made without proper consideration being given to energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is the only way to decarbonise our electricity and heat supply while also making sure that bills are affordable. On that issue in particular, the record of both this Government and the last Government is absolutely appalling.

The coalition Government’s record was very poor because their ambition for the number of measures installed was very poor and, frankly, their policies gave them to the people who were not in the most need. But this Government have managed to surpass the coalition Government by setting an even less ambitious target and, frankly, in some areas they have no policy whatever.

Improving energy efficiency is the urgent priority for UK energy policy. Scotland and Wales have the measures to be able to do a little bit more, but fundamentally the UK Government need to do more on energy efficiency and fuel poverty, or none of their energy policy objectives can be fulfilled.

I will say something specific about heat policy because frequently, and understandably, clean energy investment is devoted to conversations that are simply about electricity generation. However, heat policy is in many ways much more challenging—in fact, it is certainly more challenging— than electricity policy when we consider how we will meet our climate change targets while still giving people the security of supply that they need.

That is because low carbon heat requires us to heat our homes in different ways, and we have to choose from three broad options. First, we can electrify the heat load, but that is very difficult to do because the seasonal demand for heat is so strong. Secondly, we can build heat networks in new-build, but again that is difficult to do because there is less consumer choice with that option and, frankly, to retrofit heat networks is very expensive indeed. Thirdly, we can stick broadly with what we have at the moment, which is the gas grid, but seek to decarbonise some of that gas through green gas, anaerobic digestion and other technologies, and we can also make our boilers even more efficient in the future.

The choice between those three options must be made in this Parliament and at the moment I would say that we are either making no decisions or simply making poor decisions. Cutting carbon capture and storage when this country has the legacy of offshore oil and gas is, frankly, a terrible decision. Cutting the renewable heat incentive when we need to do more, not less, on heat is, frankly, a terrible decision. Banning onshore wind and sabotaging solar are, frankly, terrible decisions. Doing nothing on energy efficiency is abysmal, zero-carbon homes being stopped is appalling, and the green deal being abolished without a replacement being put in place is simply not good enough. I could go on and on, and I tell the Minister that the Government just have to start doing better.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

We come now to the Front-Bench spokespersons. I advise 10 minutes for each spokesperson, and for the Minister, which should give us a couple of minutes at the end for Caroline Flint to sum up.

Industrial Policy and Manufacturing

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Adrian Bailey

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. Careers advice is variable. As I understand it, we are moving away from face-to-face interactions and more towards website-based and telephone-based careers advice services. Whether that will have the effect we would want is probably a matter of concern to us all.

We need to make apprenticeships work for the long term. I know Government Members are always well armed with statistics on new apprenticeships, but I would say to the Minister that there is a quantity versus quality debate to be addressed here, and an issue to do with how many apprenticeships are effectively developing the skills of our next generation. This is an area where more needs to happen.

When I visit manufacturing businesses in my constituency, I am always struck by just how many skilled people started off at British Aerospace. Whether we meant it or not, it seems to me that in the past British Aerospace acted to all intents and purposes as an active industrial intervention, but with that role diminishing we do not have anything that really fills the gap.

As for investment, I am sure that nearly every Member in the Chamber could report the same conversation with local businesses about the banks’ lack of interest in what they do. Businesses say that funding halved overnight during the financial crisis, but that it was never that good beforehand. It seems that, as banks nationalised their business operations and their heads were turned by sectors of the economy that may have been more lucrative in the short term, they were no longer interested in the steady success of their manufacturing clients.

We must find a way of securing for our manufacturing businesses the investment that they need. It seems to me that there is a growing consensus on the need for a British investment bank, whether it is modelled on Germany’s KfW or on France’s Financial Stability Institute, and I am attracted by the idea of a regional or sectoral structure. The proposed green investment bank could form part of a wider strategic investment bank, with a remit to generate long-term returns based on investment in infrastructure and businesses across strategic sectors.

When it comes to procurement, I could simply use the word Bombardier, but there is plainly a view throughout industry that the United Kingdom’s current attitude to procurement represents a wasted opportunity for British business. Let me make it clear that I do not endorse protectionism. Some of the local firms in my constituency have been extremely successful in the export markets, particularly the aerospace businesses, and I think that talk of protectionism at home fails to recognise their achievements. A company delivering a contract here in the UK does not have to be British, but it should be possible to consider how we might be able to make procurement policy work for the UK economy in an intelligent way while still honouring our commitments to the single European market.

I was recently made aware of the problems of Manganese Bronze in Coventry, which could lead to the disappearance of iconic British cabs from the streets of London. The Mayor’s clean air strategy means that as many as 2,000 cabs may have to be replaced in December this year. With Manganese Bronze in administration, the market is now wide open for Mercedes vehicles manufactured in Germany. Surely there could have been a better way.

Another problem is the image of manufacturing. Modern manufacturing is clean and safe, but that does not seem to be widely understood. In fact, at a recent event held by the all-party group in Rochdale, some businesses reported struggling to convey the message that it was also well paid. I did not consider the problem to be particularly significant until I listened to the evidence that industry leaders gave to the group. If we are to try to increase the share of the economy that manufacturing represents, we will need to tackle that. I am not thinking of short-term rebranding or anything that smacks of a gimmick; I am thinking of a long-term campaign—similar to that requested by the hon. Member for Burnley—to get the message across to schools and make them understand what modern British industry is really like.

Finally, I want to say something about employer-employee relations and employment law in the UK. I have deliberately left that subject until the end of my speech, because I suspect that it is the one on which there will be the least consensus. Let me explain my view by giving an example from my constituency.

Kerry Foods, in Hyde, is the largest private sector employer in Tameside. It makes, among other things, Richmond and Walls sausages. Food manufacturing, incidentally, is a much undervalued part of British industry. A few years ago, Kerry needed to adopt the principles of lean manufacturing. It needed to be able to scale its production up and down much more quickly in order to remain competitive, and it therefore needed to consider moving from a five-days-a-week to a seven-days-a-week working pattern. That had big implications for the work force, who were strongly unionised, so Kerry decided to work with them and with Unite, the recognised trade union, to deliver it. In effect, Kerry told the union what it needed, and the union asked the work force to design a shift system that worked for them.

The staff knew that the company’s bottom line was staying profitable, and the company knew that there had to be something in it for the staff. They agreed on the new shift system and a 3.5% wage rise for two successive years, dropping to 2.5% in the third year. That is more than most of our constituents are getting at the moment. My constituents who work for the company have told me that they felt that the consultation process had been extremely sincere, inclusive and open to recommendations, and that input from the union had made it into the final proposals. Unite also sent its reps at Kerry Foods to “change at work” courses which would help them to understand the company’s objectives and deliver the agreement of the work force to the new system. I should add that the company pays for a full-time convenor at the site through facility time, in line with a great deal of best practice.

I gave that example in order to demonstrate that trade unions are not in themselves anti-competitive, and do not constitute a blockage to our economic prosperity. Given the right approach, they can make a very significant contribution to British industry. They should not be demonised. The Ford work forces in Dagenham and Southampton were given very little notification of the recent announcement, let alone a chance to serve as part of a solution to the problem. That was a missed opportunity.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is the trade union involvement with Jaguar Land Rover that has done so much to secure investment in the west midlands in new models and the new i54 development and, to an extent, the new Vauxhall Motors development at Ellesmere Port. Perhaps they could serve as a model for industrial communication for the purpose of promoting investment.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Those are powerful and timely examples, which illustrate the positive role that trade unions can play in an industrial strategy.

There are many other issues with which I could deal if I had time, including our relationship with Europe and the devolution of power and spending from Whitehall in the UK. I hope that other Members will refer to those. Let me end by saying how pleased I am that we are having this debate. I hope that it constitutes the beginning rather than the end of a conversation in the House about the future successful operation of the country’s industrial policy.