Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Alan Brown

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown]

Okay, so we go back to my monologue justifying why the Government should accept some of our new clauses, including new clauses 1 and 2.

Clearly, we should be grateful that energy prices are starting to fall, but the reality is that the cap on energy bills for an average household was set at £1,138 in April 2021. This month, Ofgem has set the cap at more than £2,000, so energy bills are still nearly double what they were two years ago. The reality is that many people are struggling badly with their energy bills, even though prices are falling, and those struggling the most are those with prepayment meters. People with prepayment meters can access credit of only £5 or £10. If they reach that credit limit, the lights go out—it is as simple as that. They cannot turn on the gas or electricity, and it is a real difficulty for people. It also means that if people cannot get out of the house for whatever reason—if they are ill or have just had a newborn kid—and have reached the threshold, they lose access to their energy by virtue of not being able to top up their meters.

It is unfair that people with prepayment meters pay higher standing charges. Frankly, it is an outrage that people who pay in advance for their energy are paying a premium to access it, whereas people like us in this room, who pay by direct debit, have access to credit and cheaper tariffs. As I say, the reality is that if someone is on a prepayment meter, they are going to struggle to pay their bills, they will pay more and they will face the difficulties associated with a lack of credit.

As End Fuel Poverty states:

“Imposition of a pre-payment meter is disconnection by the back door. When you can’t top up the meter everything clicks off”.

Forcing people to have prepayment meters means that those who are already struggling are put on to a system whereby they will be forced to ration, automatically disconnected when the credit limit is reached and more likely—this is the rub—to have a cold, damp home, with the long-term health implications that that brings, as well as the short-term heating and eating dilemmas.

It is estimated that 19% of housing stock across the UK is damp. The proportion rises to nearly a third, or 31%, for those on prepayment meters. In other words, if someone is on a prepayment meter, they are 65% more likely than the average person to live in a damp house. Some 51% of prepayment customers have health conditions or disabilities, so in many ways the existing system is punishing those who are more likely to require more energy in the first place. That, in a nutshell, is why a social tariff is needed for those with prepayment meters.

Research by Utilita indicated previously that as many as 14% of the 4.5 million households with prepayment meters did not choose to be on such tariffs, and what has been happening during the cost of living crisis is outrageous. For example, an investigation for the i paper revealed that since the end of lockdown energy firms have secured almost 500,000 court warrants to forcibly install meters in the homes of customers who are in debt. Freedom of information requests showed that in the first six months of last year there were 180,000 applications for such warrants.

We then had the bombshell coverage of an undercover reporter working for bailiffs, which exposed the cruelty of some bailiffs for what it was: revelling in the forced installation of prepayment meters, no matter the vulnerabilities of the customers. The officers of that debt company were working on behalf of British Gas, which of course said that it was shocked and that it did not advocate such a policy.

The rub is that some utility companies are using debt collection agencies routinely as part of their process to collect money that they believe they are owed. That set-up relieves utility companies of the burden of debt collection. More importantly, it stops them providing debt advocacy and interacting with customers, which is what is required. Meanwhile, the debt collection companies add their own fees just for reissuing bills to customers.

All that is why we tabled new clauses 1 and 2. Voluntary codes for prepayment meters will never be enough. It is quite clear that we will never know how many people were forced on to prepayment meters against their will, especially when smart meters can be switched remotely to prepayment mode without people even realising initially.

New clause 1 sets out the need for legacy prepayment meters to be switched to smart meters as long as consent is given. This is an enabling aspect, as smart meters will make it easier to implement the provisions of new clause 1(3), which will end the practice of so-called self-disconnection. The provisions include the consideration of a social tariff, and, most importantly, mechanisms to allow customers to access credit and not be cut off immediately as they would be with a £5 or £10 credit limit.

New clause 2 restricts the forcible use of prepayment meters. It does not prevent informed consent and agreement for people to move to prepayment mode, because some customers like it as a way of managing their debt, but what is important is consent and an understanding of what prepayment means. The provisions also give access to impartial debt counselling services before the switch to prepayment mode is needed. Subsection (2)(c) places a duty on the Secretary of State to assess and define customer vulnerabilities, because the current definition is too narrow and does not cover some people who should be classed as vulnerable. Lastly, subsection (3) confirms that switching smart meters to prepayment mode is considered the same as a legacy prepayment meter.

Too many people have been forced on to prepayment meters. We cannot allow that to continue and we cannot allow the door to reopen for energy companies. No matter what they say here and now when there is an immediate storm and a backlash, we need to protect people for good going forward, which is what new clauses 1 and 2 will do.

According to recent Government figures, £120 million-worth of the vouchers issued for customers in prepayment mode were still unclaimed at the start of June. There are only four days left until the deadline on 30 June, so I hope the Minister will update us on the outstanding balance of unclaimed prepayment meter credit vouchers. Having nearly 20% of vouchers unclaimed at the start of the month is indicative of a failed policy that does not support the most vulnerable in our society. Again, that is why we need new clauses 1 and 2 to protect those who sometimes cannot protect themselves.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.

I rise primarily to speak in support of new clause 38, but it has quite a lot of overlap with new clause 2. Our new clause 38, on the restriction of the use of prepayment meters, says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations restrict the installation of new prepayment meters for domestic energy use.”

It makes provision to ensure that consumers have full and informed consent on the installation of a prepayment meter, and that vulnerable customers are not put on to prepayment meters. We heard from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun some of the reasons why we have shared concerns about that. Some of my points will be very familiar to the Minister if he followed the debate earlier this year, when it reached crisis point.

Citizens Advice estimates that the number of people moved on to prepayment meters reached 600,000 in 2022, up from 380,000 in 2021. We know that that comes at a cost to them. There is a poverty premium on some of the most vulnerable, and on people on the lowest incomes, because of the shift to prepayment meters, and their use should be restricted as a result. Those with prepayment meters are more likely to be in fuel poverty and facing significant debts already. We find ourselves in a situation in which those requiring the most support are being forced to pay the most and are given the least help.

Citizens Advice revealed at the start of the year, at the height of the energy crisis, that someone was being cut off from their energy supply every 10 seconds, with millions unable to afford to top up their prepayment meters. We also know that so-called voluntary self-disconnection was a thing. People simply could not afford it, so they would not necessarily feature in the numbers. Labour’s call for a moratorium on the forced installation of prepayment meters was dismissed until the March Budget. The Secretary of State told the House on a number of occasions that he was talking to Ofgem and that plans were in motion, but during that period we were still hearing horrific stories about forced entry to people’s houses, warrants being issued and energy companies continuing to go down that path.

Our view was very much that it was the Government and the energy regulator’s responsibility to ensure that people were not left at home in the cold and the dark, yet we had to press incredibly hard before anything was achieved. Over the winter, more than 130,000 households that included a disabled person or someone with a long-term health condition were being disconnected from their energy supply at least once a week because they could not afford to top up. The same report also said that

“63% of PPM users who had disconnected in the last year said it had a negative impact on their mental health. This rises to 79% of disabled and people with long-term health conditions.”

Really good work was done by organisations such as Citizens Advice, but it also took tireless investigations from UK newspapers to expose the scale of the crisis. An investigation by the i in December showed that magistrates were batch processing hundreds of warrants in the space of a few minutes to allow the forced installation of prepayment meters, with one court in the north of England approving 496 warrants in just three minutes. At some point, we were given reassurances that people’s circumstances and vulnerabilities were being taken into account before the warrants were issued, but if nearly 500 are issued in three minutes, clearly they are not taking any information into account; it is very much a rubber-stamping exercise.

An undercover report by The Times in February highlighted how British Gas was employing debt collectors to break into people’s homes. Among them were customers described in the staff notes as a woman in her 50s with “severe mental health bipolar”, a woman who

“suffers with mobility problems and is partially sighted”,

and a mother whose

“daughter is disabled and has a hoist and electric wheelchair”.

We heard in debates at the time that many MPs had their own stories of constituents who were affected by the forced installation of prepayment meters; hopefully we will hear from some today to back up what we are calling for.

It was therefore a relief when action was taken in April, and a code of practice was introduced by Ofgem, but we have to wonder why the scheme is voluntary rather than compulsory. Just yesterday, the Committee on Fuel Poverty, in its annual report, expressed disappointment with Ofgem’s code of practice, stating that it is

“disappointingly limited in ambition”.

We have to wonder what the Government’s role is in that. I argue that Ofgem has proven incapable of dealing with the situation and it is up to the Government to step up and take control. That is what we seek to achieve with the new clauses.

The code’s voluntary nature still leaves too much power and judgment in the hands of energy suppliers, and the vulnerable and the voiceless should not be exposed to the dangers that prepayment meters pose, so I call on the Minister to give us some assurance that he accepts that it is the Government’s responsibility to act in this case—we cannot continue to leave it to voluntary codes of practice—and to support new clause 38.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I shall potentially continue my losing streak here. This new clause is about setting up a just transition commission. The Committee may be aware that the Scottish Government set up a just transition commission a couple of years ago, which is effectively world leading. It brings together independent academics, and representatives from trade unions and right across industry. It advises the Scottish Government on policy implications and what is needed as we move forward to a just transition to ensure that workers are not left behind and do not lose their jobs, to be effectively left on the scrapheap.

This important body came together and has brought transparency to the Scottish Government, and I want to see that replicated at Westminster. It would be good for the Government as a way to work across the sector and the industry, with trade unions and academics to provide expertise. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that, explaining why they are probably not going to do this in the short term. I will be happy to be proved wrong on that.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We certainly need more focus, and to hear more from the Government about ensuring that this is a just transition. We know that we cannot reach net zero without the skilled workforce to deliver it, and without decisive action to ensure that no community is left behind. It is illustrative to look at what Joe Biden is doing with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, where a lot of focus is on energy-intensive states such as Texas to ensure that, as they move away from fossil fuel exploration, the jobs are still there. We all know what happened, as we debated earlier in this Committee, when the coalmines were closed with the lack of a strategy to ensure good, decent jobs for people left behind. We saw whole communities abandoned and, in some parts of the country, turned into basic commuter villages, rather than having a home-grown industry.

It has rightly been said that net zero is the economic opportunity of the century, but it represents a potential threat to those who, at the moment, rely on traditional industries. That is not because oil and gas extraction will immediately cease, or because coal-fired blast furnaces will suddenly be switched off. It is because our reliance on the old way of doing things will gradually decline and, as a result, the skills required will evolve.

Workers in those industries need to know that there is a plan. As I said, we cannot allow the mistakes of the 1980s to be repeated. We need a forward-looking industrial strategy, to make it clear that the transition to net zero is an opportunity to reinvigorate our industrial heartlands and coastal communities and to make it clear that that means a higher quality of work, better regulation of employment practices and greater diversity in the sector. This is quite a complex task. Some of it will be industry-led, but we know, particularly when we get further down the supply chain to those clusters of jobs that will be based around the traditional industries, that those smaller companies will need support to diversify as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Lady will be aware that procurement rules and contracts for difference auctions, for example, are reserved to Westminster, so the Scottish Government do not have control of that. There is a whole supply chain aspect that is not developed, and that is partly because of these procurement rules—the fact that the cheapest price takes all. We want that amended at some time.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was about to move on to that, because it is important. On the Government’s lack of action on developing a strategy, I have been trying to ask questions about the Green Jobs Delivery Group, such as when we will actually see some delivery and outcomes and how that will feed through into a skills strategy and an industrial strategy, but I have been getting very little by way of response.

Friends of the Earth Scotland has called on both the UK Government and the Scottish Government to ensure greater worker representation in their transition planning through existing bodies such as the UK’s Green Jobs Delivery Group and the Just Transition Commission in Scotland. It says that at the moment there is little support provided for high-carbon workers to find alternative jobs, to facilitate retraining where necessary, or to lighten the financial burden of training currently borne by the workers.

Last month, the Climate Change Committee briefed that the

“Government has policy levers at its disposal to support workers during the transition”

but warned that

“clearer plans are needed to harness the potential of the transition and to manage its risks.”

Work has been done. As I said, my concern is about focusing on setting up a commission rather than just calling on the Government to actually come forward with a clear strategy, a clear road map, particularly on the skills front, and to link that up. I do not know whether the Minister will accept my analysis of the situation, but it seems very fragmented. It is left, in large part, to big companies in the supply chain to try to ensure that the workers of the future are there as they transition. There is not a strategy for the smaller companies in the supply chain unless the big companies are leading that.

[Alan Brown]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about wanting the Government to get on with it sooner, but does she not agree that commissioning a body of experts will provide better advice, enabling the Government to develop their strategy better?

Marine Renewables: Government Support

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Alan Brown

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate. We have had quite a tour of the UK today, from Orkney and Shetland down to the south-west of England via Wales and Northern Ireland. I smiled a little when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said it was his desire to talk about Strangford lough that brought him here today, given how omnipresent he is in Westminster Hall debates, but as always his contribution was valued.

This is one of those ideal Westminster Hall debates, where everyone has something of real interest to say and is not political point scoring, but trying to speak with a common purpose, highlighting individual and local concerns. What has come through clearly is a desire for clarity from the Government and for support for the sector, so that it feels that the Government are behind the desire to harness our marine energy resources and we can expedite the roll-out. As has been said, value-for-money decisions or calculations that were made some time ago may need to be reassessed in the light of the current energy situation. The point was made that, once we get to a tipping point, things become a lot cheaper.

We know we need a diverse mix of energy sources if we are to get to net zero. It is always frustrating when clean energy sceptics say, “What happens when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow?” and conveniently ignore the fact that our tides, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, are a predictable source of energy and something we should be harnessing. We could also use hydroelectric reservoirs, which I do not think anyone has talked about, which release stored water and therefore generate energy at short notice.

I will pick up some of the points that other hon. Members have made as I go through my speech, but I want to start by talking about some of the really inspiring projects that are in the pipeline. The groundbreaking Blue Eden project in Swansea will generate 320 MW of energy, create 2,500 jobs and support another 16,000 in the supply chain. It was interesting to hear about the potential of the blue energy island, which is a small way to make a real difference.

In Merseyside yesterday, metro Mayor Steve Rotheram signed a deal with the South Korean state-owned water company, which owns and operates the world’s largest tidal range scheme, to develop the Mersey tidal power project, which could generate enough energy to power 1 million homes. It will create thousands of jobs and help the region get to net zero by 2040.

In Cumbria, where the Government are about to give the go-ahead to a new coalmine—I thought we might have had the news by now—there is the potential for thousands of jobs in green industries such as offshore wind, tidal power and green hydrogen. The choice facing us is whether we doggedly rely on dirty fossil fuels—hon. Members mentioned the investment allowances being put into new fossil fuel exploration instead of supporting renewables—or embrace the green industries of the future and the potential for jobs. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that 80% of the content is UK-generated, which will have a great impact on the supply chain. It is a no-brainer that there should be Government backing behind that.

In my local area, the Western Gateway group of local authorities has set up a new commission to explore tidal options for the Severn. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) knows that that has been an ongoing discussion ever since we have been in Parliament. Talks stalled in the early years of the coalition Government. There was a feasibility study. There were concerns about the cost, and talk about whether a barrage or tidal lagoons would be the better option.

There were also valid concerns about the impact on the natural environment in the estuary. We have not touched on that much today, because people are so excited about the potential of tidal power, but we have to look at some of the possible negatives. In the case of the Severn, there were concerns about the impact on migrating bird life at the wonderful wetlands at Slimbridge, for example. Environmental campaigners have also expressed concerns about the Morecambe bay project.

I hope we can find a way through this and harness the potential of the Severn, which has the second-highest tidal range in the world, but we need to do so in an environmentally sensitive way. More generally, we need to look at preventing sea life from being caught in the blades of the turbines and to assess the impact of vibrations and noise on marine mammals that echolocate to communicate and navigate, such as whales and dolphins. Such things need to be taken into account.

I recognise that the costs of tidal stream are far higher at the moment than those of solar and wind, but they have fallen significantly in recent years and are expected to fall further still. The comparison was made with Hinkley Point C. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it is not about setting one off against the other and saying either/or; it is about making that comparison. If we are investing in Hinkley Point C, we should be looking at renewable options. It is estimated that, by 2035, tidal stream could provide power at £78 per MWh, which could fall to £50 per MWh by 2047 —quite a few Members have mentioned those statistics.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Lady says it is not an either/or, but the reality is that if too much money is invested in nuclear, its generation capacity means that there is not enough scope for renewables coming on to the grid, so in some cases it is an either/or.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman answered his own question earlier by flagging up the investment allowances attached to the windfall tax that are being given to the fossil fuel companies. That money should be directed towards this investment and not towards fossil fuels. It is not money for nuclear versus money for renewables; it is money for fossil fuels versus money for clean energy sources.

We have talked about the UK having the potential to develop around 1 GW of tidal stream by 2035 and up to 11.5 GW by 2050. National Grid’s future energy scenario models up to 3% of UK electricity demand being met by marine renewables by 2050, but we need to do more to release that potential. According to Energy Monitor, 14 GW of planned UK power capacity has been cancelled, is dormant or is stuck in the early stages of development but, as has been said, lack of investment and of a clear sense of direction are not the only barriers.

The grid has been talked about—it is a massive issue—and we have heard about the Welsh Affairs Committee report. The same issues come up time and again when I talk to people as part of my shadow role: long waits—sometimes of up to 10 years—to connect clean power sources to the grid, delays to projects and investors being deterred.

Jet Zero Council

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Alan Brown

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown]

Yes, I agree it is important. They need to be replaced because half the existing nuclear power stations will be phased out in the next four years. However, they do not need to be replaced by nuclear; they should be replaced by renewable energy, so I absolutely do not agree on that point.

We also heard about Airbus being a Jet Zero member, and how it is developing the ZEROe hydrogen aircraft. We look forward to hydrogen aircraft being up and running. I draw Members’ attention to a post-briefing note that highlights the fact that hydrogen emits twice as much water vapour as existing jet fuel. That is a potential issue, and perhaps the Jet Zero Council could look at that, in collaboration with the Government. The need for wider sector support from the Government, by doubling of Aerospace Technology Institute funding to £330 million a year, is also rightly identified. What assessments have the Government made of those asks?

There seems to be cross-party support for Jet Zero and the aim to get net zero aviation by 2050, but there are clear asks for the Government, and I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm those financial commitments that have been asked for around the tables.

3.36 pm

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate. The fact that we had contributions from Members with constituencies as far afield as Strangford and St Austell and Newquay, taking in Gloucester, Newcastle upon Tyne North and South Cambridgeshire on the way, says an awful lot. Each Member stressed the importance of the sector to their constituency. I was on the board of London Luton airport a long time ago, when I was a councillor in Luton, and I appreciate the importance of the airport to the town and to Dunstable and the wider area. Of course, now I am a Bristol MP, and we have a vibrant aerospace sector—and we are home to Concorde, although I note that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) says that he has a Concorde as well. Technically ours is just over the border in Filton, but I think Bristol lays claim to those areas when it is in our interest to do so.

We all know how important the subject of the debate is and, particularly at such a difficult and challenging time for the sector, it is important to take a considered, nuanced approach to the issues that we are discussing. We might, if we had had the debate much earlier in the year, have been able to focus purely on decarbonisation and the need to make progress with that in the sector, but covid has, as with so many other things, turned everything in the aviation world on its head. There have, as we have heard, been unprecedented falls in demand for flights because of the pandemic. The sector has faced immense financial hardship and it is predicted that it will not fully get back to its feet until 2023 or 2024 —or, given the degree of uncertainty, who knows?

Now, therefore, the discussion of decarbonisation must also deal with how to save aviation jobs in the short term, ranging from those in manufacturing, technology and design to those in airports and airlines, and the supply chain. We should not forget the many small companies that also rely on the industry and need to be part of the shift. It is one thing to consult bigger companies as part of the Jet Zero Council, but for every big company at the forefront of innovation there will be many other small and medium-sized enterprises that rely very much on being taken along on the journey.

Labour has called for a sector-specific package for aviation, which will be conditional not just on the protection of jobs—including an end to firing and rehiring on inferior contracts—but on progress in meeting environmental targets. It is important that those two objectives should be intertwined. Some nations uncritically bailed out their aviation sectors because of the pandemic without considering the climate impacts, but other nations have been both ambitious in protecting their aviation sectors and sensitive to the need to decarbonise the sector. France, for example, provided more than €15 billion, much of it to Air France, conditional on a number of things. For example, France expects the airline to renew its fleet with more efficient aircraft; to source 2% of fuel from sustainable sources by 2025; to achieve a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide from domestic flights by the end of 2024; and to ensure that overall emissions from all flights are halved by 2030.

I welcome the Minister to his new post. I hope that we hear from him how the UK can follow France in taking such a lead, because this is too important an opportunity to miss, given that we need far more intervention and investment in the aviation sector—more of a lead from the Government—than we perhaps would in normal times. How can we maximise the opportunity to get the sector back on its feet and also accelerate the progress we all want to make towards net zero?

Intervention is desperately required, both to safeguard jobs and to allow us to become world leaders. Setting up the Jet Zero Council, bringing together all those top minds in the industry to discuss the issues, is a good start. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said, it is a notable omission that there are no workplace representatives on the council. I hope the Minister will address that in his response, because this is very much about everyone involved in the sector, not only the companies behind it.

I confess that, when I first took on the role of shadow Minister for green transport, I was quite sceptical about some of the claims about sustainable aviation fuel being the way forward. There was lots of talk about sucking carbon out of the sky, but it was not really backed up by much science in the debates or the representations that I heard. In the six months that I have been in this job, and having had so many meetings with people, I have been on a steep learning curve, and I now think there is huge potential for us to make progress in developing sustainable aviation fuels. As well as speaking to sustainable aviation figures, I have spoken to Velocys, which is pioneering production in the UK; I think it has £500,000 funding for a centre in Immingham. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire talked about it trying to create sustainable aviation fuel from waste, which is a really interesting development.

I also met the Electric Aviation Group, which has a connection with Bristol and with companies such as Airbus. Unfortunately, it has not been invited to join the Jet Zero Council—I have just had a letter back from the Minister about this—but it is working on a hybrid electric aircraft for UK skies. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that easyJet is also looking to develop an electric plane soon. The Electric Aviation Group says that, eventually, easyJet could probably fly hybrid planes to most destinations that it flies to in the future. It is obviously a bit more complicated for longer-haul flights. Hydrogen was mentioned by a number of Members, and the fact that Airbus, for example, is exploring it via its ZEROe concept. We obviously want to go down the path of clean, green hydrogen if we can, rather than blue hydrogen. I hope that the Jet Zero Council helps us move on to that path.

As I said, it is quite exciting how much has been done on sustainable aviation fuels. I think that a lot of progress will be made in the next few years. As other Members said, that in itself does not address the immediate issue, which is that—putting to one side covid and the fall in aviation emissions that we have had as a result of people just not flying—the trend of the last decade is aviation emissions either stagnating or increasing, whereas other sectors have been pretty successful in cutting emissions, such as the energy sector, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said. We are just not seeing that for aviation.

Aviation counted for 8% of UK emissions in 2019, according to the Committee on Climate Change. I agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire on the need to include international aviation emissions in the UK’s net zero emissions legislation. Domestic aviation emissions have fallen to some extent, but those international emissions are not currently included in that legislation. I do not know whether the Minister will have something to say on that, because, as I understand it, the Government have said that they want to look at how we can include international aviation and shipping emissions in that target. That would act as a real incentive; rather than just focusing on emissions from domestic flights, which are a tiny minority of journeys, we must look at the international picture.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also talked about carbon offsetting and planting trees, and options such as those must all be included. We also need to consider the issue of aviation demand, once passenger numbers start to return to normal levels. The debates around airport expansions and attributing responsibility remain important conversations to have, particularly given the recent court ruling against Heathrow expansion.

An estimated 70% of all flights in Britain are taken by just 15% of adults, and I think the Treasury is due to consult on the potential for greening aviation taxation soon. We need to look at how aviation can achieve a sustainable level of demand and remain affordable for ordinary families. I am certainly not arguing that ordinary families should not have the right to fly, travel and go on holidays, but I would argue that we need to place more responsibility on the minority of frequent flyers. Perhaps covid has alerted people to the fact that they do not necessarily need to fly across the world for a business meeting—there are things such as Zoom now. The UK’s replacement for the EU’s emissions trading scheme may well be another opportunity to green aviation taxation appropriately, so I hope we see some ambition from the Government on that in the coming months.

To conclude, I urge the Government to balance things out: in the longer term, the Jet Zero Council is a very exciting proposition, but we know that it will not deliver the solutions that we need to deal with aviation emissions in the short term. Alternative fuels have a role to play but, given the crisis in aviation, what we need from the Government now is a coherent package that looks ahead to international leadership at COP, but also looks at how we can save jobs, reskill people who work in the aviation and aerospace sectors, and create those jobs of the future—saving the industry and saving the planet at the same time.