Coalfield Communities

Debate between Mark Spencer and David Mowat

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he knows that I more than partially agree with him about the carbon price floor and the impact on energy-intensive industries, but is it right to pretend that the vote that took place on 4 December did not matter? The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) did vote with Baroness Worthington and all of those people for the accelerated closure. That is what happened and I think it was a key moment in the history of the Labour movement that that vote took place with apparently so little concern.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) mentioned the carbon price floor and that is part of it, as is the subsidy regime that we have put in place. The closure of coal stations is being driven by the large combustible directive and we are pursuing that, but it is worth saying that we are increasingly acting unilaterally in this regard. We should remember that we are the only country in the EU that is cutting the amount of coal we use. That is an extraordinary statistic and people should reflect on that, particularly those on the Labour Front Bench.

On 4 December there was a Labour three-line Whip for a vote on Lords amendment 105. That amendment said that the emissions performance standard—which means that new coal must, effectively, have carbon capture and storage—was to be applied to existing coal stations. That is what Opposition Members were whipped through the Lobby to support, and I think it is incredible. Apart from the effect on fuel poverty, we have seen the effect on Tata Steel and we are seeing the effect on the coal industry. The coal industry around the world is prospering. I shall say it again: no form of energy increased in absolute terms as much as the coal industry did.

[Mr Spencer]

I just wonder if my hon. Friend recognises the challenge. At Thoresby colliery it is 8 km from the pithead to the pit face, and it is 1 km down. How does it compete in a global market to get that coal from the face to the surface, when in China and the States they can just bulldoze it out of the ground in open-cast sites?

[David Mowat]

I am not an expert on the economics of the coal industry, but I would just say it is pretty heavy stuff and having to transport it an awfully long way has got an economic impact. I am not suggesting that the entire coal station fleet in the UK has to be sourced by UK Coal; it will come from abroad as well. I do say, however, that by turning our back on coal more quickly than any other country in Europe or the world, we are saying something about our intentions. We are taking important decisions for the future.

I know that many hon. Members, particularly those who represent constituencies in the coalfields, agree at least in part with a lot of what I am saying. I really believe that there is more than one Labour party in this regard. There is the Primrose Hill branch which has forced this stuff through—the three-line Whip, the vote on Lords amendment 105. I believe, however, that many Opposition Members—particularly those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, whom I respect greatly—do not really agree with some of that stuff, and some of them at least did not vote for it, whether by accident or design. Nevertheless—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed: clearly by design. Nevertheless, that is what happened and what we are talking about here is an issue in the Labour party. It needs to decide whether or not it wishes to support our coalfields in the same way that other parties across Europe support their own coalfields, or does it wish to just give in to the Primrose Hill section of the party?

Climate Change Act

Debate between Mark Spencer and David Mowat

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Up until now, there have been two main groups in the debate: those who accept that man-made global warming is happening and, therefore, that we need the Climate Change Act; and those who repudiate the idea that it is happening and who think, therefore, that we do not need the Act. I am actually in a third set: I am prepared, on the balance of probabilities, to accept that man-made global warming is happening and needs to be addressed, but I have some severe reservations about the Act, and particularly about the thrust of climate policy in this country.

Why do I accept the science? First, I am ignorant. Frankly, there is too much certainty on both sides of the debate. I agree that the science is not settled, but Members on both sides of the debate talk as if they were more certain of everything than I am of anything. My ignorance on this issue leads me, under the precautionary principle—I have a degree in applied science, although that does not make me an expert—to accept that much of the balance of science, as has been correctly said, says that man-made global warming is happening.

[Mr Spencer]

Given that the whole House seems to accept that the climate is changing, does my hon. Friend feel it is legitimate to debate whether we should spend taxpayers’ money on renewable energy schemes or on mitigating the damage climate change could do to our communities?

[David Mowat]

That is a different matter, namely adaption. I have a lot of sympathy with that point, particularly given the world’s record in failing to get people to agree to act over the last decade or so. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, the science is clear: greenhouse gases and water vapour increase temperature, and other things do too. What we do not know, and what the whole debate in science is about, is the weight of those factors.

There are people, who are probably cleverer than anybody in this room, wrestling with that issue, and I do not intend to get into it, other than to say a couple of things. It is probably true that the temperature has not risen for the last 10 or 12 years. Does that, in itself, undermine the thrust of the science and the models? It does not. There will always be a probability of such things, given the noise in the data. However, the Minister or the Opposition Front-Bench speaker might like to tell us how many years of no warming we must have before we seriously question the models. At the very least, the fact that we have had so many years of small amounts of warming tends, under Bayesian probability theory, to take us to the lower end of the forecasts.

As I say, I accept the science. We have seen the Stern report, warts and all, and the costs involved. Parliament put in place the Climate Change Act and the 80% reduction to try to keep the temperature rise to 2° C by 2100, and it was helped in that by five Budgets. There are some good things in the Act. First, it focuses on carbon, not renewables. EU legislation focuses almost entirely on renewables, which is why we are sucked into the false impression that countries such as Germany, which produces significantly more carbon per unit of GDP or per capita than us, are the good guys, who can burn coal and have renewables. Frankly, if a country wants to reduce carbon, it does not have renewables, it stops burning coal. So that is a good aspect of the Climate Change Act. The Act is also clear and hard to fudge. It is also inflexible, which is a strength and a weakness.

The issues I have with the Act are threefold. First, it is, broadly speaking, uncosted. Secondly, it is inflexible, and I will return to that in the light of some of the facts, which are changing. Thirdly, and most importantly—I disagree with the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on this—it is, broadly speaking, unilateral: nobody else has put in place anything as stringent, and if I am wrong, I look forward to the Minister telling me so at the end.

On the Act being uncosted, it may well be right for the world to address the issue of climate change, but that does cause fuel poverty. That might be a price worth paying, although that case has not been made very much, and the Government might pursue it a little more. Of course, carbon leakage also means, at the margin, that we are losing jobs in some industries—particularly heavy industries in the north—because they rely heavily on power. It always strikes me as a little odd, at a time when we are trying to rebalance the economy, that we are putting manufacturing at a potential disadvantage, although that has not wholly happened yet, and we will see how things pan out.

Solar Power (Feed-in Tariff)

Debate between Mark Spencer and David Mowat

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in this debate. Right at the beginning, I want to nail my flag to the pole as being very pro-solar. I believe that solar power offers us a great opportunity to change how we generate power, in a green way that protects the environment and lowers our carbon footprint. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I have been very keen to push forward schemes such as solar and anaerobic digestion, which also offers us a great opportunity. Those schemes provide energy without having a great impact on neighbouring sites.

I am keen to set out the position in which the Government found themselves when they came to power. After 13 years of a Labour Government, we faced the real prospect of an energy crisis. We risked a gap in the supply to the general market and in this country’s ability to find energy to keep the lights on in our homes and ensure that our businesses can thrive and move forward. It is a damning fact that the previous Government did not grasp the nettle and sort out this country’s energy supply to ensure that we can operate securely.

To that end, I probably part company from the Secretary of State in saying that I think that the real answer to delivering large-scale energy production will be nuclear. The previous Government should have taken quicker action to deliver it. Coming from the constituency of Sherwood, and from the former coalfields of Nottingham, I believe that the other way in which we can solve the crisis is through carbon capture and storage, using coal-fired power in a green way so that it does not increase our carbon footprint.

The most important point to recognise is that a lack of action is simply not an option. We cannot continue the way we are going. We are a victim of the enormous success of the feed-in tariffs scheme. People have really embraced the opportunity to put solar panels on their own homes. Unfortunately, we pitched it at an unsustainable level, and the only option is to reduce the subsidy to a level that still allows the industry to continue and people to deliver solar panels.

Opposition Members have referred to what happens in Germany. The simple fact is that we are reducing our support to the same level that exists in Germany, and the industry is sustainable there. I am not an astronomer, but my understanding is that we share the same sun, and the strength of the sunlight is the same. If the industry can thrive in Germany at the same level of subsidy, I believe it can be sustainable in this country. The truth is that time will tell whether we are right or wrong. I believe that as we move forward, the industry will carry on and people will still be able to make use of the opportunities provided.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about Germany. He will perhaps be aware that, in the last year of the previous Government, Germany was getting approximately 10% of its energy from renewables, while we were getting 2.5%. We have a lot to learn from Germany.

[Mr Spencer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We can learn from some of the things Germany got right and some of the things it got wrong. That is the way to move forward.

Basically, there is a simple calculation. We need to get more solar panels for each pound we spend, and the Secretary of State’s suggestions would deliver more panels per pound. That is the simple calculation we have to make. The other thing we need to do is bring the technology into the mainstream.