Oral Answers to Questions
Polly Billington Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin McCluskey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he does to advocate for his constituents in Na h-Eileanan an Iar; I was pleased to visit him recently to see the impact that the increases in heating oil are having on his constituents. We are looking closely at the non-domestic heating oil market, and we will come forward with more proposals in due course.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the team on reducing the cost of energy, including with recent efforts to break the link between the volatile gas price and electricity prices. However, every witness before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, when we ask how to decarbonise and reduce bills, tells us, “Make electricity cheaper.” What further efforts will the Government make in reforming the energy market in order to achieve that?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend will know that we are taking action, which the Secretary of State announced, to further delink the cost of electricity from gas. As Ofgem said last week in relation to the price cap, we are already seeing the effects of that. Because of the additional renewable generation in the system, we are seeing the effects of that. Every turbine we build, every solar panel we deploy and every reactor we bring online will ultimately reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and bring down the cost of electricity.
Energy Security
Polly Billington Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s party has changed position on this recently, and I welcome that change. As I have said, the North sea is a foundational industry. It is not just about the oil and gas it provides. It is not just about the tax revenues. It is not just about the jobs that exist within that industry. It is about all those other industries it supports, including the chemicals and plastics industries. By the way, even the renewables industry supports more drilling in the North sea, because it needs the specialist rigs, the undersea technologies and the exact same workers. There are so many industries and wider economies that the Government are killing just because of the ideological bent of this Secretary of State.
Claire Coutinho
I will make a bit more progress.
Here is the fundamental bind that the Labour party is in. It does not matter who its next leader is—they will all fail. Its supposedly popular leadership contenders will become unpopular very quickly when they cannot keep their promises. It happened to us in government. It is happening to Labour now. It is happening to Reform at council level. It will happen to whoever is in government next unless they face up to the trade-offs that get us better growth.
Growth is the antidote to so many of our problems, but to deliver it, we need two things: cheap, abundant energy and economic freedom. By shutting down the North sea, cancelling nuclear projects and keeping a distorted electricity market in place, the Government are making energy scarce and expensive. Being part of the EU does not solve that problem. The EU leaders themselves rail against their own energy policy. Reindustrialisation is just a meaningless slogan unless we back the North sea, axe the carbon taxes that are killing British industry and cut the cost of energy. If none of Labour’s contenders has the courage to say anything about these issues, nothing will change.
Alongside cheap, abundant energy, the most important ingredient for growth is economic freedom, but the Labour party openly stands for more state control, more tax and spend, more red tape on employing people, more expensive energy, less AI, fewer profits and more subsidies. It has been on this path for two years now, and what do we have to show for it? Higher inflation, weaker growth and soaring unemployment. Why would anyone want more of this? Families are working harder and harder and getting less and less at the end of the month. And if people want full-fat socialism, why would they choose Labour when they have the boob whisperer offering them bigger and better?
Our whole system is flooded with caution. Nobody is incentivised to take any risks.
That is what is making us poorer. The truth is that the personalities in the Labour leadership race do not matter. Unless we get cheap, abundant energy, remove the legal straitjackets and onerous taxes, and fix the broken regulators and the sluggish machine of government to set the economy free, nothing is going to change.
If Labour Members think that Andy Burnham has the answers, let me tell them this. Andy is like the fun uncle who sits on the sidelines saying whatever he wants without anybody holding him accountable: “Let’s have ice cream for dinner! Let’s go to the zoo next week! Let’s nationalise everything! Who cares about the bond markets? Let’s rejoin the EU!” He has said whatever he liked because he has never had to pick up the bill. Now that he is actually looking at being in charge, he is having to go back on all those promises. Members should ask him this: how is he going to fund his nationalisation plans? He wants to stick to the fiscal rules. Is he really saying that he is going back to taxpayers, who already face the highest tax burden in history? When he talks about reindustrialisation, they should ask him whether he supports the Secretary of State’s plans to shut down the oil and gas industry—the biggest act of industrial self-harm committed in generations. If Andy Burnham wants more powers at a local level, amen to that—I could not agree more—but Labour Members should ask him how he can argue for economic freedom in one breath, while in another dictating to people what tumble dryers or cars they have to buy.
If Labour Members really cared about growth and reindustrialisation, they would axe carbon taxes, get Britain drilling, double down on nuclear and make electricity cheap. In short, they would put the national interest ahead of the Secretary of State’s ideology and vote with us tonight.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend is very well respected in his area for the fantastic amount of work that he has done in Scunthorpe. He is constantly holding the Government to account, and indeed working with the Government. We have to do this together to protect our steelmaking capacity, for the sake of our industrial wealth.
I agree—we all agree—that the energy independence Bill provides a framework for transitioning the UK energy market away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy. We have no problem with that; it is sensible in the context of nuclear energy. However, the ideological pursuit of renewables is doing harm, and is at odds with achieving energy security when we have our own fossil-fuel resources in the North sea. It is not a zero-sum game. I do not see the ideological virtue of simply exporting our carbon emissions, which we are doing.
Sir Edward Leigh
No, I must make some progress. I do apologise.
I should have thought that we could have a compromise on this. We could have a policy that is sensible, gradually moving away from fossil fuels and gradually becoming a more green-energy economy, but we should not simply export our emissions and set arbitrary dates.
As this is a debate on the King’s Speech, I hope you will you forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I mention another subject in the short time available to me. When you get to my age, you can say unpopular things; I have not got much longer anyway. [Hon. Members: “Aah!”] I have two minutes!
The problem with our country is that we are governing by focus group. What do focus groups want? They want less tax and, of course, better public services. Debt is already 100% of GDP, and within 50 years, because of the triple lock and other benefit increases, it will be 170%. Of course the old vote, but the old have children and grandchildren, and we have a responsibility to younger people in our country. The Government know that the present system is unsustainable. While the average increase in the triple lock measures over the past 13 years—and we brought that in; it was supposed to be a temporary measure, but no party has the courage to change it—has been about 40%, pensions have gone up by over 60%. That is nearly £20 billion of annual additional costs so far, and that will get bigger every year and more unaffordable. The gap is likely to grow to £120 billion, if not more, by 2050, exacerbating the economic crisis. Whoever becomes Prime Minister will have to cope with that. By then, there will be 20% to 25% fewer taxpaying workers—our children and our grandchildren—per pensioner in Britain.
Of course we have to care for old people, particularly old people in poverty, and divert resources to them, but we must remember the younger people as well. This is entirely unsustainable. Yes, we want to keep a triple lock, but not the triple lock. We want it to be the average of the three indices, so that the amount does not go up exponentially every year. The Government should do the right thing by the nation, and bring in a measure to that effect. They should make our finances affordable, and those on my party’s Front Bench should not oppose them. We should govern in the national interest. We should make our finances sustainable, and then we really can help the people who are most in need.
Joe Robertson
I accept that there are some difficult questions in and around this whole area of debate. The truth remains that no Government have done more to decarbonise the economy and to bring forward green technology than the last Conservative Government, but we would not do that at the expense of hard-working families. The bonkers green tax agenda that this Government are peddling is harming the debate on decarbonising the economy. I will give an example of that.
Ms Billington
I am comfortable with accepting that there has been a growing consensus about decarbonising our energy system over a period of time, starting with the Climate Change Act 2008, which only a handful of Conservative MPs voted against. However, I am puzzled that hon. Member thinks that the last Tory Government did that without any burden on the taxpayer or on bills, when the so-called energy savings package that Liz Truss put in place cost £44 billion and has left this country in profound debt.
Joe Robertson
I acknowledge that the last Government made mistakes—I do not have a problem with that—but that is not an excuse for the hon. Lady’s Government to do even worse for hard-up working families.
Bonkers green taxes harm the debate, and I will give this House an example. UK emissions trading scheme levies on the maritime sector are levied on ferry companies. My constituents on the Isle of Wight rely on those ferry companies to access things that everyone else takes for granted: health, education, jobs and seeing friends and family. Next month, someone can travel across the Solent to the Isle of Wight, taking their car on one return trip, for £511. That is for a five-mile return crossing.
The Government, instead of helping us—they say they will help, and I am still holding out hope that they will—will in July levy a carbon emission tax on the Fishbourne to Portsmouth route that the ferry company cannot avoid. It cannot decarbonise its ferries and go electric, because there is no grid charging capacity in Portsmouth harbour. There is no grid charging capacity in Southampton either. These are not strange little harbours—they are the naval base of the United Kingdom and one of the biggest export container ports respectively—yet there is not the grid capacity to charge an Isle of Wight ferry. The ferries will pay, however, and guess what: they have passed on that charge to consumers and my constituents.
Ms Billington
Specifically on the Southampton point, it was under the Tory Government that the Labour-run Southampton council wanted to clean up and install that grid connection to be able to decarbonise shipping in that port and specifically to tackle air quality in that city. The Tories had 14 years, and they did nothing.
Joe Robertson
I gently say to the hon. Lady that the reason her Government are in such a mess and polling at under 20% is that she and her colleagues think that the universal excuse for her Government’s inaction is to blame a previous Government. She won that argument at the last election, and since then her Government have done nothing. Southampton will have that grid-charging capacity for boats in the mid-2030s, yet the Government are bringing in a charge in July this year. Do you know what the irony is, Madam Deputy Speaker? One of those ferries has batteries on board. It is a hybrid boat that can use batteries to cross the Solent and not burn fossil fuels, but it is being charged because it cannot use its batteries, because it has nowhere to plug into. The EU is bringing in that charge and ringfencing the money it receives from its emissions trading system to invest in grid capacity in ports—but not the UK Government; they are taking the money, shoving it into the Treasury and making no promises about investing in grid capacity. That is not the last Government; it is this Government.
I say to those on the Government Front Bench that these bonkers green levies make no sense, harm ordinary people and undermine the entire case for their green agenda.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Time and again over the past few months, and, indeed, in this debate, we have heard Ministers talk about the importance of energy independence, and they are right to do so. No country has ever succeeded without cheap and abundant energy. For energy to be cheap and abundant, its supply must be reliable. If we are dependent on energy imports from overseas, the supply of energy will necessarily be unreliable, as the disruption caused by recent events in the Persian gulf has made abundantly clear. But it is profoundly dishonest to talk of energy independence while making us more dependent on energy imports from abroad. That is exactly what the Government’s plans to ban new North sea oil and gas would do. They should, at the very least, be brave enough to admit that to the public.
Ministers say that there is no point in using our vast oil and gas reserves; they say that energy prices are set entirely on the international market, which means that increasing our domestic supply would have little to no impact on the overall prices. But that is not true. Gas is a highly localised market, specifically in the case of liquefied natural gas, which is gas that is turned into liquid, loaded on to ships and transported globally. The further those ships have to travel, the more expensive it becomes to deliver. If we rely on gas imports from the rest of the world, we will need to spend more money to bring that gas to Britain.
The vast majority of homes in the UK—87%—use gas for heating. We currently import half of the gas that we consume. If we produced more gas domestically, it would be cheaper to buy gas, meaning that heating bills would, in fact, come down.
Ms Billington
I know that the hon. Lady’s party is not very keen on experts, but I would refer her to Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, who has pointed out that expansion of production of North sea oil and gas does not significantly improve the UK’s energy security, will not alter the UK’s status as a net importer and will take too long to affect global prices. He says that global demand for fossil fuels has changed permanently and we should, therefore, be prioritising renewables, nuclear power and electrification over further fossil fuel expansion.
Katie Lam
As I just said, 80% of houses use gas for heating. We cannot simply substitute that for renewables—it is impossible.
Returning to the issue of energy independence, producing more gas domestically would also make us more resistant to global shocks. We would be far better served if companies that provide energy in Britain were bidding on gas produced in this country, rather than gas produced halfway around the world. Not only would bills come down, but we would mitigate the risk of sudden cost increases as a result of supply restrictions elsewhere. Yet the Government are proposing a policy that would achieve exactly the opposite.
The demand for gas is not going away, much as the Government might wish that it were. Even if British homes move away from gas in the long term, it is absurd to impose higher bills on them in the short term in the name of ideology. Those on the Government Benches often talk of sustainability, but there is nothing sustainable about this situation. Families across the country are facing higher bills and extra taxes to fund this Government’s ideological commitment to intermittent energy sources. Many will be forced to do things such as postpone holidays or delay moving house to be able to afford the increasing costs imposed on them by this Government.
Meanwhile, businesses are being forced to cut back on staff or shut their doors altogether, because the cost of doing business is now simply too high. That means local pubs, family farms and nursing homes all being forced to shut up shop. For industrial businesses in particular, the situation is even worse. These are businesses in sectors such as AI and high-skilled manufacturing that can provide some of the best paid and most durable jobs, revitalising whole communities and enabling people to build successful lives for themselves. While China and India fuel their industrial expansion with new coal-fired power plants, British industry faces some of the highest energy prices in the developed world—they are the highest in Europe, and they are more than double the price paid by industrial businesses in the United States. We cannot hope to sustain an industrial base in this country, let alone grow it, while the price of energy is so vulnerable to global shocks. Why would anybody start a new industrial business in Britain under these conditions?
If this action is being taken in the name of climate change, it is proving to be a catastrophic failure. In the eight years between 2013 and 2020, China pumped out more carbon emissions than Britain has produced over the past 250 years. That is not just because China is a bigger country—per-person emissions from China are more than double those in Britain. We are sending our emissions abroad to countries such as China without making a dent in addressing global climate change, and British families and businesses are left to pick up the tab.
The Government’s plans on energy policy will leave us more dependent on overseas imports and will leave the British people worse off financially, without making any noticeable impact on global climate change. If the Government genuinely want to advance our energy independence, we welcome that, but they will not do so by wrecking domestic production and leaving us reliant on imports from abroad.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Almost 15% of people in East Thanet are in fuel poverty—significantly above the national average of 11.4%. That is thousands of my constituents who cannot afford for their energy bills to go up, but who, because of international events completely out of their control, are now facing exactly that. Working people like them should not bear the burden of decisions made by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. That is why I am glad to see the Government’s focus on energy and energy independence in this upcoming legislative Session.
There is no one silver bullet for achieving energy independence. It requires action to reduce energy usage, which is why the warm homes agency will be so important in order to give people trusted advice and access to grants and low-interest loans. It requires more generation of energy at home, because the more we produce domestically, the less exposed we are to volatile fossil fuel markets. It requires reform of the market and it requires diversity of supply.
However, this new international situation is different from the circumstances we were previously considering when tackling the science of climate change and the failed energy market in this country. We now live in a situation where the global context is more volatile and more unstable than it has ever been. Therefore, the legislative programme that the Government have announced is absolutely necessary, but it may not be sufficient on its own. To secure the energy independence and resilience we require, the Government need to consider their role in establishing greater international agreements on how we increase the resilience of our global economy against our exposure to fossil fuel markets. I have called on the Government to convene an international energy summit with the same boldness and scope of Gordon Brown’s crisis summit in 2009 following the great financial crash. I saw at first hand then the role of Britain using its convening power to bring nations together, and we should look to do so again.
I was delighted to hear in the King’s Speech that we will be hosting the G20 next year, and I hope the Government will put energy co-operation right at the heart of that summit. This is crucial because 20% of the world’s oil, 20% of global liquefied natural gas and one third of seaborne fertiliser pass through the strait of Hormuz every day. The economic pain of this has not yet hit us. People are already talking about the risk to family holidays, but there is a risk of food shortages and starvation, and of blackouts in countries that are vital to our supply chains. That is the seriousness of the situation we are facing, which requires an international solution. I am delighted that we have a deep, broad and integrated approach to tackling some of the most challenging elements of creating increased energy resilience, as outlined in the legislative plans, but the situation does need to be seen in the wider global context, and it demands global leadership from the British Government.
Oil and Gas
Polly Billington Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho
The two Ministers are Scottish MPs. They have been to industry, and they know what people in those areas are saying. They know the jobs that are being lost. It is so blindingly obvious that we should use things that we make in this country, rather than using dirtier imports from abroad. The question they need to ask themselves is, why is it that their Secretary of State cannot see the truth?
Fifthly, the Government say that new fields will take too long to get up and running. That is dangerous, short-termist rubbish. Jackdaw and Rosebank could be up and running by Christmas. They have been sat on the Secretary of State’s desk gathering dust. The Government are hiding behind the process. I was part of the process, and it is in the Secretary of State’s gift—it is up to him to make the assessment. We are in an energy crisis, and he could speed things up if he chose to do so. Jackdaw alone could produce enough gas to heat more than 1.5 million homes. Labour’s Chancellor commended Norway and Canada for drilling more—[Interruption.] That is what she said last week. She said that
“every country has got to play their part”
by generating more oil and gas. Government Members should ask themselves why their party position seems to be to support the oil and gas industry anywhere but Britain.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady agree with her shadow Energy Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), when he said:
“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do. We need to decarbonise and we need to have an ambitious target to aim for”?
Claire Coutinho
I would thank the hon. Lady, but I do not think it takes much effort to read out a Whip’s question. The question she needs to answer is why she is supporting a policy that will increase British emissions. She is supporting a policy that means we are importing goods with higher emissions.
I have laid out five bad arguments that have been thoroughly disproved by people outside this Chamber whom the Government supposedly respect. Those five bad arguments spun by the Secretary of State should be consigned to history. What the North sea can give us is what it has been doing all along: stronger energy security, a stronger environment and a stronger economy. Are those not things that we want the next generation to have? The question that the Government need to answer is this: what reason do RenewableUK or their very own chair of Great British Energy have to back the North sea if it does not give us those very things? Maybe—just maybe—it is time for the Government to admit that their Secretary of State has approached his role with a dangerous, blinkered ideology, rather than being interested in the national interest. Perhaps even they realise that they are once more being marched up the hill on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of public opinion, when we all know that there will be an inevitable U-turn from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in a few weeks’ time.
It is mad at the best of times not to want to make the most of our own resources. The idea that one should ban industry if it does not change prices in this country is, let us be clear, an argument to shut down all business in this country. There are benefits to making things in Britain: jobs, tax revenue and self-reliance. The Labour party used to understand that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Polly Billington Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes the really important, and relatively basic, point that gas is priced and sold on the international market. Whether it comes from the North sea or is imported, it is charged at the same price. And do not just take my word for it; when the shadow Energy Secretary was in post she said that more drilling would not necessarily lead to lower energy bills.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that this energy crisis offers the opportunity to shift further and faster on clean energy. Will he consider an energy social tariff linked to the warm homes plan to support those who are most exposed to the volatility of fossil fuel prices, not just those on benefits, but other vulnerable communities like the disabled?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and no doubt the Chancellor will cover this in her statement shortly. It is incredibly important that we protect the most vulnerable, particularly at this time. I am proud of the action we have taken to nearly double the number of people getting the warm home discount to 6 million people. This very important action will take another £150 off people’s bills, so in a sense, we have a form of a social tariff, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep looking at how we can expand that and help more families.
Heating Oil Support
Polly Billington Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin McCluskey
I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive tone, for working together on some of this, and in particular for her comments on the need to move towards a transition to ensure our energy security and, ultimately, to lower bills.
On the hon. Lady’s point about a cap, the market for heating oil, as she will know, is very different from the market for electricity and gas. The reason that the price cap was introduced many years ago was the potential loyalty penalty that existed, whereby consumers who were with an individual company for a long time were penalised for that. Heating oil, by contrast, is supplied through a highly competitive market. That is why we have asked the CMA to look at this in more detail and we will examine its findings to establish what regulation may be required.
On the hon. Lady’s comments regarding the warm homes plan, the low income fund will target many of those people. She may also be interested to know that about 50% of the grants given out under the boiler upgrade scheme are to rural homes, many of which will be in this situation, that are transitioning from oil heating to electrified heating through a heat pump.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement. Giving support to people who are off grid is vital; however, Thanet Earth, which is near my constituency and employs a number of my constituents, actually grows 20% of the tomatoes that are sold in this country. The business is profoundly energy intensive and is doing all the right things on decarbonising its energy supply, yet it is still profoundly affected by such fossil fuel spikes as those we are experiencing today. Will the Minister look at what is possible to support such energy-intensive industries through this energy crisis?
Martin McCluskey
I know that my hon. Friend has been a champion for such industries in her constituency, including Thanet Earth. The Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), is working through the implications of this crisis for such businesses as we speak, and will come forward with plans in due course.
Warm Homes Plan
Polly Billington Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I will get to the question. We inherited the system from them, and we have raised the standards in the solar road map through the solar stewardship initiative with the solar industry, we have raised the standards through GB Energy, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is working with colleagues across Government to ensure that slave labour is not used in the supply chain.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this warm homes plan? It has been a long time coming—perhaps a little longer than Conservative Members are prepared to admit, given that he and I worked on something very similar before the Tories abandoned the warm homes ambitions that we now see fulfilled. Under the current calculation, one in six households in my constituency lives in fuel poverty, predominantly in places such as Cliftonville and Ramsgate town centre, where incomes are low and buildings are old. Incidentally, such households are predominantly in the private rented sector. Will my right hon. Friend consider revising the fuel poverty calculation to truly reflect how many people struggle to keep their homes warm in winter and cool in summer? As 28% of my residents live in private rented accommodation, will he say a bit more about the information that might be available to support landlords to make this shift? Will he confirm that he will support an energy social tariff to support the transition to a cheaper and cleaner form of energy?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right. Working with the private rented sector to raise the standards is incredibly important and, frankly, we cannot let this scandalous situation, which affects so many private tenants, carry on. She makes another important point: upgrading the nation’s housing stock is a big journey. We have been left a long and bad legacy, and we are determined to make a difference.
Offshore Wind
Polly Billington Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I just disagree with the hon. Lady. She is making a massive gamble on the future—she is gambling that gas prices will fall. We are giving this country the assurance that we can have clean, home-grown power and lower bills for good.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on structuring the auction to drive down the strike price and reduce consumer energy bills. It is worth reiterating that this means renewable energy will be 40% cheaper than gas. Importantly, though, this is also about creating jobs, specifically in coastal industries. Could he elaborate a little on the clean industry bonus and, in particular, how he might be able to support supply chain jobs in our coastal communities?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks very well on these issues, and she is absolutely right to ask that question. The great thing about the clean industry bonus is that for the first time we are rewarding manufacturers for investing in Britain. It is going to leverage in multiple amounts more private investment compared with public investment, and I believe it can be of massive benefit to our coastal communities.
Oral Answers to Questions
Polly Billington Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
The 2023 generation costs report published under the previous Government shows the levelised cost of electricity to build and operate a new gas-fired power station to be significantly higher than the cost of onshore wind, solar and offshore wind in the most recent renewables auction round. Renewables are a cheaper technology to build and operate than new gas-fired power stations.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks an important question. In our 2030 clean power plan, we talk precisely about the importance of low-carbon dispatchable power as a way forward. I am really proud of what is happening with our carbon capture and storage plans and Net Zero Teesside. Additionally, it will be an important part of our forthcoming hydrogen strategy, as he says.
Ms Billington
Current global instability, from Ukraine to Venezuela, has shown the vital importance of having domestic energy security. Does the Secretary of State agree that investing in renewables will help with both security and cost, particularly because they are cheaper to build and operate, as well as providing us with vital energy security in an uncertain world?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right. The figures that came out from NESO over Christmas show that we had extra renewable power in 2025 equivalent to powering 2 million homes; that is 2 million homes that will not be powered by imported gas. That gives us the price stability that we never had under the previous Government. The fundamental lesson at a time of geopolitical instability is that home-grown clean power is what gives us the certainty we need.
COP30
Polly Billington Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
We are making big investments in farming and agriculture. In answering the hon. Lady’s question, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), who are both with me on the Front Bench. They were part of the negotiations and discussions, including on agriculture and the question of methane. The UK produced its methane action plan in the run-up to COP; methane reduction is an area where we can make quick progress that can have real benefit in bridging the gap to 1.5°C. There were definitely extensive discussions on that; the world made progress on methane and it is something that we will keep working on in the months ahead.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State would not necessarily like me to remind him that it is 16 years since the first COP he attended with me, which was significantly less successful than the one this year. I commend him for his great effort over that time in managing to demonstrate the UK’s leadership on climate change. That cannot be underestimated, and despite what some on the Opposition Benches think, we make a difference by demonstrating what is possible in climate actions here at home. Where we lead, others follow.
For that reason, the Secretary of State also knows how important nature is in contributing to tackling climate change, and how much our constituents value nature at home and abroad. In that light, financing is important, especially maintaining the amount of funding in the new international climate finance budget for nature projects. Will he confirm that a third of the new budget will be spent on nature projects, with half of that spent on protecting forests?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend reminds me how old I am, for which I am grateful! At various points in the middle of the night, Friday into Saturday, I could not help feeling a slight sense of Copenhagen post-traumatic stress disorder as I thought we were heading for no agreement. One of the things I consoled myself with was that the world is actually much further forward than it was when the Copenhagen summit foundered. On my hon. Friend’s important points about international finance and nature finance, despite the difficult fiscal circumstances, we have maintained funding of £11.6 billion over five years in the ICF. We will be making new announcements in the coming months, but the points that she makes about protecting nature and tackling the climate crisis going together are very well taken.
State of Climate and Nature
Polly Billington Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
Let me start off in the spirit of continued generosity by reiterating my praise for the hon. Lady for bringing forward the Bill, and for the Zero Hour campaigners whom I met in a previous incarnation of mine. Their role over a long period, in pushing forward the Bill, has been important. I am very happy to meet her and the campaigners. This will be a continuing process, as I discussed with her, and I am happy to take forward those discussions.
Let me address the substantive point the hon. Lady made about climate and nature, because it is important. What the Government are striving to do is build the low-carbon energy infrastructure that we need in a way that is nature-positive. For example, the nature recovery fund that we are putting in place is absolutely about doing that. Some people do not agree with that approach, but we are trying to do two things: build the clean energy infrastructure required to get us off fossil fuels, which I know she wants to see; and at the same time, protect and restore nature. I am convinced that we can do that.
The point that I will end on is this. I just urge the hon. Lady to think. If we are to fulfil our net zero ambitions—these are stretching targets—we have to build the infrastructure. I say to all Members that the easy thing is to say no, but the right thing to do is very often to say yes to the energy infrastructure we need.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, in particular the importance and emphasis that my right hon. Friend places on how climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. I also remind the House that after the national health service, the thing that this country loves the most is its natural environment. Understanding the vital role that nature itself plays in tackling climate change will be vital in the years ahead. I refer in particular to the importance of saltmarsh. I talk quite often with my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the importance of peatland, but saltmarsh is also vital as a valuable habitat. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the light of what he has been talking about today, we will have a properly integrated spatial energy plan, national planning policy framework and land use framework, so that such climate-valuable habitats are properly protected?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and conviction on these subjects, and she is absolutely right about the role of nature. I add—and I will come on to her question in a second—that the biggest threat to nature that we face is the climate crisis. The figures I read out from scientific authorities show the scale of the threat that is already there to our countryside. As I said in my statement, the threat will only get worse. On the land use framework, we are currently consulting and will come up with a final document later on this year. She makes a crucial point about the need for co-ordination between the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan, which together mean that we use our land in a sensible way and that we build the energy infrastructure we need.