Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Lady makes her point well and anticipates the issues that I will come on to. Fracking will not make a difference to bills, we cannot be assured of its safety, and it is a disastrous response to the climate crisis.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman always wants to intervene on every point. He always says, “On this point” so it is hard to believe it really is on this point.

It makes no sense to become more reliant on shale gas produced overseas. Indeed, the Committee on Climate Change’s analysis notes that while current evidence on the emissions footprint of UK shale gas and liquefied gas imports is not yet definitive, available estimates indicate that emissions from those imports could be higher than those that would arise from commercial UK shale gas production by between 2 and 63 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh of gas consumed. Using our own resources is therefore more environmentally friendly and will help us to get to net zero.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

My right hon. Friend is making some very valid points. It is about not just domestic gas supplies and electricity production, but the chemical industry, and most importantly, the fertiliser industry. One of our plants has already shut down and the others are switching from natural gas from UK sources to ammonia from the United States, whose cheap shale gas enables that industry to keep going. If we cannot produce our own fertiliser, food production in this country is under great threat.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who puts it very clearly. Using our own resources is environmentally friendly, but we have to make sure there is popular consent for it. I feel that the British public would not welcome the disruption and shortages that would be caused by Labour’s policy of taking gas out of the network by 2030.

Fossil Fuel Extraction

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

In this global week of advocacy for fossil fuel non-proliferation, I call on the Government to deliver on the climate leadership that was promised, while the UK still has the COP26 presidency, by helping to initiate a negotiation process on an international fossil fuel treaty to phase out fossil fuels. I will set out the context for this treaty, the idea for which originated several years ago with parliamentarians in the global south and that has now been endorsed by more than 200 worldwide. I will lay out some of the reasons why such a treaty is necessary and ask the Minister some key questions about the Government’s strategy for ending fossil fuel production.

According to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the burning of coal, oil and gas accounts for around 86% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the past decade. There is global consensus that, on scientific, economic, public health, justice, moral and countless other grounds, we have to end our deadly addiction to fossil fuels, and we have to do it fast. At the Glasgow climate summit, under the UK’s ongoing COP presidency, for the first time since the original UN framework convention on climate change was negotiated in 1992, fossil fuels were finally referenced in the outcome text, albeit by committing only to a “phase down of coal”. But the fossil fuel age is well and truly over, and the only debate to be had is how quickly, successfully and fairly we act: whether we urgently transition to a zero-carbon economy or decline into climate chaos.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does my colleague on the Environmental Audit Committee agree that one problem we face is as a result of her colleagues in Germany forcing the closure of nuclear power plants? The Germans are burning more fossil fuel than before, and if we had a nuclear future, we would be able to have a lower carbon footprint in this country. If only Germany would follow that lead.

[Caroline Lucas]

I think I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The truth is that although mistakes have certainly been made in Germany in the past, the idea that new nuclear now can help the UK get to net zero fast enough is simply misguided; it is too costly and too slow, and it simply will not get us where we need to be quickly enough. What is clear, however, is that phasing out fossil fuel production, and fast-tracking progress towards safer and more cost-effective alternatives, will require unprecedented international co-operation.

I want to begin with a quick reminder of the science and with what climate experts are saying about fossil fuel production. Last year’s United Nations Environment Programme production gap report concluded that in order to limit warming to 1.5°C, the world will need to decrease fossil fuel production by at least 6% per year between 2020 and 2030. At the moment, there is no collective means of reaching that hard scientific deadline together, of accounting for the global impacts of choices made unilaterally by individual nations on our shared planet. Yet a universal and equitable approach is critical, as the Tyndall Centre’s own production phase-out report warns. It says:

“For a 50% or better chance of 1.5°C, our analysis shows that all producer countries must peak their production immediately and begin an uninterrupted decline. Expanding production in wealthier producers would either shift poorer producers (in fact all producers) onto more steeply declining pathways with earlier end dates, or put the temperature commitments beyond reach.”

Let us be absolutely clear: the UK is one of those wealthier producers, which together produce more than a third of the world’s oil and gas. Moreover, the UK has a moral responsibility to go further and faster than the vast majority of the world, because our historic cumulative emissions are so much greater. Tyndall analysis finds that the UK must reduce our oil and gas production by 50% in six years, which equates to an 8.3% reduction year on year, and must cease it completely by 2034—and that is just for a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C once equity is factored in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to deliver new nuclear power.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

Let me pay tribute to those who worked at Hunterston nuclear power station in Scotland, which closed a few days ago. The operators have reported that since the station came online in 1976 it has produced enough zero-carbon electricity to power every home in Scotland for nearly 31 years.

Looking ahead, the Government have announced a £120 million future nuclear enabling fund to support new nuclear and we are aiming for a final investment decision on at least one more large-scale nuclear project during this Parliament, subject to value for money and relevant approvals.

[Mr Goodwill]

What a shame that the Scottish National party is not pressing for a replacement of that old girl, who has given fantastic service over the years. Will the Minister reassure me that he sees nuclear as a way of not only replacing electricity capacity but producing the hydrogen we will need to power the heavy vehicles—the buses and trucks—of the future?

[Greg Hands]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that further question, and I totally agree with him on where the SNP is. On energy in general, SNP Members are not the friends of Scotland on nuclear or the North sea. He is also absolutely right on hydrogen. On the Government Benches we recognise that net zero needs nuclear for security of supply, to meet our decarbonisation targets and to support new industries such as hydrogen.

Draft Companies (Strategic Report) (Climate-related Financial Disclosure) Regulations 2021

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 General Committees

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Companies (Strategic Report) (Climate-related Financial Disclosure) Regulations 2021.

The regulations were laid before the House on 28 October 2021. They will amend the Companies Act 2006 to require certain publicly quoted and large private companies to include in their annual reports disclosures in line with the international framework for climate reporting developed by the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.

Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time, both to society and to the economy. Internationally the Government are taking a leading role to promote action through our presidency of the United Nations COP26, and domestically we are working to deliver the UK’s world-leading target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Government have published our net zero strategy, which sets out the measures to transition to a green and sustainable future. To support the transition to net zero, it is important that economically significant companies assess, disclose and act to manage climate-related risks and opportunities. Without an accurate assessment of climate risks by companies, it will be impossible to assess what action is needed to address them. Information from those assessments should be taken into account in the business model and strategy of every company to create more climate-resilient businesses. It should also form a key part of all investment decisions.

Some large UK companies are already reporting on climate risks, but to date those disclosures have been variable in both quality and quantity. The inconsistency makes it very difficult for investors to compare opportunities and risks across companies, let alone across markets. Many organisations are also not making the fuller disclosures that are needed to inform business risk and investment decisions.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

From listening to the Minister, I understand that we are talking about general statements about risks and opportunities, not about accounting for the carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases produced in the same way as businesses produce business accounts for currency.

[Greg Hands]

This is a qualitative assessment done by the 1,300 largest companies in this country—those with more than 500 employees—of how they see the risks and opportunities of climate change, to help their own company planning and also help investors looking at particular companies and across sectors. At this stage, the idea is to have a qualitative assessment from each company in its annual report. Producing annual reports is part of an established process.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the Minister think that in due course we might see a carbon balance sheet where companies have detailed information, so we would be able to tell exactly where they were in terms of their own net zero targets?

[Greg Hands]

We already have a separate reporting regime in place for that—streamlined energy and carbon reporting. I think my right hon. Friend is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which takes a keen interest in these matters. I refer him to that separate reporting stream, which might satisfy some of his rightful craving for more information.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

He has, yes.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

What do you want to say, Mr Goodwill? You have only just come in.

[Mr Goodwill]

Well, I could say a few words if we have time. [Interruption.] Oh, he’s here now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

None the less, thank you for your consideration. Seamlessly, we now move on to the wind-ups. I call Matthew Pennycook.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I listened carefully, as I always do, to what the hon. Gentleman said in his speech. I think what he misses is the fact that the demand for electricity will double, so I do not think that his argument about the amount of baseload or firm power that is required necessarily follows.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will, but then I must make some progress.

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman also appreciate that we may need to generate large amounts of hydrogen, or indeed use nuclear energy for direct carbon capture, and perhaps synthesise jet fuel in that way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think we will need a range of technologies. Let me return to a point that has been made by several Members. I think we must take a lead from the Committee on Climate Change, which made its view very clear in its balanced pathway scenario for the sixth carbon budget. It estimates that we will need 10 GW of nuclear power by 2035. We will have a predominantly renewable energy system, but we do need the firm power that comes from a limited degree of nuclear to support that.

My second point relates to what has been the elephant in the room today, namely China’s involvement in UK nuclear power. As we debate the principle of the Bill today and scrutinise its provisions in the weeks to come, that issue cannot be set aside. Members in all parts of the House want to understand more fully precisely where the Government now stand on the deeply flawed deal that they struck with China General Nuclear in relation to Sizewell, which has been mentioned several times in the debate.

The CGN stake in Sizewell was without doubt a sweetener for the far larger prize of unfettered Chinese ownership and operation of a nuclear plant at Bradwell, but while it seems certain that the very notion of a Chinese-run UK nuclear plant is now dead, we have yet to hear Ministers say so explicitly, or tell the House how the Government intend to disentangle themselves from the 2016 investment agreement signed by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). We deserve to be told, and I hope that the Minister will at least make some reference to that issue in his closing remarks. We also need to know how the Government plan to divest CGN of its minority stake in Sizewell C, and what the estimated impact of that divestment will be on the overall financing of the project, because that issue has very real implications for the mechanism that the Government have chosen to enable Sizewell to progress, namely the RAB model.

That brings me to my third and final point. A number of Members, including the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and the right hon. Member for Kingswood spoke clearly and forcefully about the advantages of the RAB model. It is not in dispute that the proposed model will lower the cost of capital on nuclear projects—I fully accept that—and it is also not in dispute that it would lower overall costs, although Labour Members take issue with the frankly heroic assumptions that underpin the claimed £30 billion to £80 billion in long-term savings vis-à-vis coal-fired financed projects. However, it is also undeniably the case that these advantages would be secured as a result of shifting a proportion of risk on to consumers.

It is worth emphasising not only that the RAB for which the Bill would provide, and the risk therefore entailed in it, are of a different order of magnitude from RAB arrangements utilised on other infrastructure projects, but also that when it comes to the yearly surcharges levied on customers on those projects financed via RAB arrangements—for example, the Thames tideway tunnel, which has been mentioned

several times today—there is an inherent degree of uncertainty about the level at which those charges might peak. That is why it is important that the right hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) rightly emphasised the need to scrutinise the precise arrangements that will be brought forward and the need for safeguards when doing so.

While we on this side of the House acknowledge the advantages of the RAB model for new nuclear compared with contracts for difference financing, we have concerns about the potential exposure of customers if costs rise significantly or if serious overruns take place. We do not oppose the principle of the Bill, and we have no intention of voting against it this evening, but we intend to look very carefully in Committee at precisely how the Government intend to implement the RAB model in question, at whether its benefits are as significant as has been claimed, and at how many investors the Government expect to return to the UK market if this legislation passes. Most importantly, we want to work with the Government to explore ways in which consumers might be better protected from escalating costs in the event that things go wrong. New nuclear must provide secure and affordable low-carbon energy, but it is still by no means clear that the Bill stands to deliver in both those respects. It is imperative that it should do so.

Draft Electricity (Risk-Preparedness) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 General Committees

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity (Risk-Preparedness) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.

The regulations were laid before the House on 17 September. As members of the Committee will know, the transition period ends on 31 December 2020. At that point, direct EU legislation that forms part of the legal framework governing our energy markets will be incorporated into domestic law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This statutory instrument forms part of my Department’s work to ensure that the United Kingdom’s energy legislation continues to function smoothly after the end of the transition period.

This particular statutory instrument makes amendments and revocations to regulation EU 2019/941 on risk-preparedness in the electricity sector. It does two things primarily: first, it amends rules to ensure that they operate effectively in domestic law. Secondly, it revokes provisions that will no longer be relevant to us after the conclusion of the transition period. Specifically, it amends provisions relating to the development of electricity crisis scenarios and a risk-preparedness plan to ensure that they operate properly after the transition period. As of 1 January next year, the United Kingdom will make independent decisions on our energy policies. The statutory instrument applies to Great Britain and revokes certain obligations, for example, to submit information on our risk-preparedness to EU bodies and institutions.

In summary, the statutory instrument will ensure the operability and integrity of Great Britain’s energy legislation. It will provide certainty for market participants and safeguard the resilience of the electricity system. It will also ensure that the continued functioning of risk-preparedness is maintained, so we will have just as much provision for and foresight of risks as we had before, but we simply will not have to report back to the EU about our plans.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

We have an interconnector between the UK and Europe. Will there be an impact on that, given that there will be an EU implication for the sale of electricity in both directions through the interconnector?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We have more than one interconnector connecting us to European countries, and we intend to build many more. This statutory instrument relates to our risk-preparedness. When we were in the EU, we had to report back to it to say how risk-prepared we were and what risks we were mitigating. We will no longer have to do that, and the statutory instrument is a good transition out of an EU-regulated system into one that we independently manage ourselves. That is broadly what it does.

The regulations are an appropriate use of the powers of the withdrawal Act, and we fully intend and believe that they will support a well-functioning, competitive and resilient energy system for consumers. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Small Modular Reactors

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I declare an interest because my eldest son is part of the Rolls-Royce team that looks after the reactors in the Astute class submarines that have been so reliable and that keep us safe. As we have heard, large nuclear reactors over 1 GW are proving hard to deliver, not only in this country but worldwide, so small modular reactors may be part of the answer.

It is true that nuclear is the safest and greenest way to generate electricity. It delivers for the environment, which is why I am astounded that green parties around the world campaign against nuclear energy. In Germany, the green coalition forced the Government of the time to abandon nuclear generation. Indeed, it tried to prevent the Czechs, with their Temelin plant, from generating there.

I saw an interesting interview on YouTube the other day with President Putin, who was complaining that the Germans were angry that they were so reliant on Russian gas. He said, “Well, what do they expect? They’ve abandoned their nuclear stations. They’re abandoning their brown coal stations. What do they expect to burn—firewood?” Then he turned, in a rather sinister way, and said, “We have a lot of firewood in Siberia.”

Coal is a dangerous fuel to burn. Statistics from China indicate that, in 2014, there were 931 fatalities in its coalmining industry—the first time in history that the figure had been below 1,000. In fact, between 1996 and 2000, there were an average of 7,619 deaths in the Chinese coal industry, which is 20 deaths per day. When coal is burned, it has an effect on air quality, and statistics I have seen say that nuclear generates 440 fewer deaths per unit than brown coal. In terms of climate change, nuclear is 83 times less likely to produce carbon dioxide than coal. Nuclear is the answer to air quality and to climate change.

Other renewables are not in the clear either. Deaths from photovoltaic solar panels on rooftops make them 16 times more dangerous than nuclear—people fall off roofs—and wind generation, particularly out at sea, is four times more dangerous. Of course, when that issue is raised, people trot out Chernobyl. We need to make it clear that we have learned lessons from Chernobyl. I have been to the Chernobyl plant, and it is not the same sort of plant. I had a Lada car once, and it was not the same as a Rolls-Royce.

We have seen 17,000 cumulative reactor years in 33 countries in the nuclear industry. If we can build in some passive features as well, we will have a great future and the UK will once again be a world leader in nuclear technology.

Draft Textile Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hosie.

We should be proud that the UK has often been a beacon for consumer protections in the EU and globally, with countries across the world looking to our consumer protection laws. Unfortunately, consumers have been left in limbo since the Brexit vote in June 2016, with little assurance about whether they will continue to enjoy the same rights and protections or what the Government’s Brexit agenda will mean in that regard.

The deal announced last week mentions a level playing field for consumer protection for the transition period, but fails to address the future of consumer protection after Brexit, so there are still vast uncertainties for consumers. The Government have failed to properly engage with consumer groups about Brexit, especially at the highest level. That is an abdication of their duty to UK consumers, who collectively put £100 billion into the economy each month.

The regulations are technical and aim to ensure a smooth transition after 29 March 2019. They amend legislation in the field of labelling and composition of textile products. They transfer powers to the Secretary of State to recognise new textile fibre names and testing methods, amend the language that must be used to label textiles and transfer labelling obligations to importers into the United Kingdom.

In principle, we do not oppose what are, on the face of it, technical changes, but I am still not clear about questions of jurisdiction and enforceability after Brexit, as I mentioned in a Westminster Hall debate on consumer protection and Brexit in October 2017. For example, it is crucial that we maintain cross-border consumer protection so that consumers have the confidence and security that the products they are purchasing are safe, but the Government have not been clear about how they will ensure that those mechanisms are ready to go after 29 March, and indeed after the transition period.

As the head of consumer policy at Citizens Advice said in evidence to the Justice Sub-Committee of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union,

“It is one thing to say that the rule of law applies, but if there is no right to compensation when travelling abroad, or purchasing from an EU trader, if the cross-border agreements are not there to back it up it is not worth as much as it would suggest.”

Does the Minister have any further details about that? On the regulations, what mechanisms will be in place after Brexit to ensure that any differential changes in future textile product arrangements are enforced accordingly? What impact will any divergence in regulation have on consumer rights and confidence in the UK?

Although not explicitly stated, the regulations will be enforced by local trading standards bodies, but cuts to local authorities since 2010, which have led to some local authorities’ services being cut by in excess of 50% according to a Chartered Trading Standards Institute study, have diminished trading standards’ ability to properly inform and enforce consumer protection laws. There has been a 56% reduction in the number of trading standards officers from 2009 to 2016 according to the National Audit Office, leaving some services with just one qualified officer.

What assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the draft order’s increasing the workload of already financially stretched local trading standards services following the UK’s exit from the EU? Will further funds will be allocated to trading standards to accommodate the extra workload? The Office for Product Safety and Standards is a step forward.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Perhaps I was not listening to the Minister as carefully as the hon. Lady, but the Minister told us that the European Commission does not enforce the EU regulations itself. Those powers are domestic, so the draft order will not actually present a change on the ground.

[Gill Furniss]

My point is that the 50% cuts to trading standards are already having an impact on protecting people’s rights in this country. The Minister has given me absolutely no evidence that there will be further funding. I ask her to consider that, because these services are already very pressed. I have already pointed out that many local authorities have only one officer. On the Whirlpool issue, Peterborough has been pulled out because it has become the country’s major trading standards service for dealing with those very dangerous products.

Finally, is the testing infrastructure and particularly expertise in place to undertake the testing of textiles? If so, will further funds be required to sustain an adequate level of testing following the UK’s exit? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions raised.

Former Steelworks Site in Redcar

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had some really positive cross-party discussions about a free port in Teesport. The potential to create jobs, attract investment and elevate the area on the global stage is huge. We have got to ensure we get it right, but there is massive potential there, Brexit or no Brexit.

I want to talk a bit about the opportunities on the SSI site. We are building on a strong foundation of public and private sector talent and on Teesside’s determination. We have the same ambitions for the steel site and a strong local team of business leaders, local authority officers and cross-party politicians, who are all working hard to deliver on those ambitions. There are many innovative projects with an interest in the site—from energy generation and materials processing to rail and renewables—and lots to get excited about. Much of the detail is protected for commercial reasons, but some of the details have been reported in the local media. Metal production could be coming back to the site, with proposals for an aluminium cast-house facility. A £5 billion energy plant focused on clean gas is also in the pipeline, and will potentially create thousands of jobs.

I secured this debate not simply to congratulate everyone and say that everything is marvellous. I am afraid it is not. I am already aware of two big investments that will now go elsewhere, attracted by better support. The first is by the chemicals company INEOS, which was looking to Teesside as the location for its new 4x4 manufacturing plant for Projekt Grenadier. That £600 million investment could have created more than 1,000 new jobs. The South Tees site and a location in Germany were shortlisted, but it was announced just over a week ago that the company may now look to Wales instead. That is a big lost opportunity for the regeneration of the development corporation site and for jobs on Teesside. The car industry is one of our region’s key strengths—the supply chain is well developed and we have a great skilled workforce.

The other lost investment I am aware of is by a major steel company with significant UK operations, which was looking to develop an electric arc furnace on Teesside, building on the excellent research into electric steelmaking by the Materials Processing Institute in South Bank. That would have returned primary steelmaking to Teesside, continuing our long and proud history of doing that. Instead, the company is now looking at a more attractive offer from the devolved Government in Scotland.

We must ask why those companies made those decisions. I believe the Government could have given them more certainty and financial support. I highlight those incidents not to spread doom and gloom—I know how important it is to talk up the area—but we need to recognise what is at stake if we cannot secure the confidence of those who are looking to invest.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is disappointing that the Land Rover Defender plant will not come to Teesside, but does she recognise that the site that has been allocated is an existing Ford automotive plant where there are a lot of skills? No doubt it was that, rather than the fact that the Government were not prepared to support Teesside, that tipped the balance.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but that just demonstrates the urgency of the need to sort the site out and get it ready. We just cannot compete with other sites if we still do not own the site and it needs huge investment to get it ready. That is why this debate is so urgent.

Brilliant companies are investing in our area. I have mentioned Sirius’s $4.2 billion project. At full production, that will have the ability to increase the size of the Tees valley economy by 18%, and some 800 people are already working on the site. However, to reach its full potential, that project, like others I have mentioned, will require a Treasury guarantee to match commercially raised funds.

I sincerely hope that the Government back up our local ambitions with the finance necessary to support that project and others, and that they avoid their natural inclination to be risk averse when it comes to backing such major projects. I urge them to believe in us in the Tees valley and in the companies that want to invest in great projects there. I am raising a warning flag. The Government must pull their weight and put the required money behind those bids, or we will continue to lose out to devolved or other nations.

The biggest barrier to realising our ambitions is the ownership of the charge on the former SSI land, which remains with the Thai banks. That is holding back progress. Negotiations with those banks are ongoing following the signature of a memorandum of understanding between the banks and the development corporation in May. That was due to expire at the end of October, but I understand it has been extended until early next year, although no press release was issued to acknowledge that. The local team is working hard, supported by funding from the local councils, to conclude a deal for the SSI land and for land owned by others, such as Tata. It is hindered in those efforts by premature announcements of multi-million pound investments that are some way off. Such announcements put at risk the chance of securing an affordable, locally negotiated deal, and risk raising local expectations. Of course, we have compulsory purchase as a backstop should those efforts fail. That process has started—landowners know they will receive nothing for the land should a deal fail.

As a first step, we need the Government to do everything in their power to support ongoing negotiations and ensure that they result in a successful agreement at the earliest opportunity. If that involves providing funding to seal the deal, that option must be on the table. Failure to gain ownership of the land and assets is holding everything back, and Ministers need to go beyond ad hoc funding commitments to provide confidence that long-term support will be forthcoming.

That brings me to funding. Before the Budget, the development corporation had just £5 million to progress regeneration work, which is not enough to get the land ready. Given the complexity of the industrial assets involved and the huge amount of work that needs to be done to clean up the site, that will cost an awful lot of money—£5 million will not stretch far. Although the management funding of £118 million in last year’s Budget was welcome, it was just keep-safe money that the Government had a legal duty to provide to protect the public from industrial hazards. It was the absolute minimum required to keep the site safe and protect the lives of those who work there and of the local community. It was also aimed at reducing the Government’s management costs.

In this year’s Budget, three years on, the Government announced that the site is to become a special economic zone. It is not yet clear what that actually means. At this stage, the extra powers the area will be granted for being such a zone are limited to being able to retain 100% of business rates growth. There is little difference between such a zone and existing enterprise zones, of which we already have plenty around the Tees valley, and that power is already granted to local authorities. Business rates retention will increase to 75% in 2020-21 and to 100% for the pilot schemes that are already under way in 20 local authority areas.

I was concerned that that change would mean taking money that would otherwise have been received by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, placing the cost on local people and public services. However, answers to written questions I tabled following the Budget reassure me that that will not be the case. All business rates growth over and above the current baseline will be retained locally and shared between the development corporation and the borough council according to a formula that is still to be agreed.

Although it makes sense that the private sector should help to fund the ongoing development of the site, I am concerned that progress will be extremely slow if that is the main source of funding for regeneration. That mechanism will begin to pay off only when new industries are established, and as we do not yet own the land, that is some time away. We would like reassurance from Ministers that that will not be the limit of central Government’s contribution to the clean-up of the site, not including their long-term legal responsibility to keep the site safe.

I recognise that the Budget also included £14 million to support short-term measures to help unlock two projects on the most shovel-ready land, which is currently owned by Tata. That is obviously welcome, but in the grand scheme of things it is a very limited measure when compared with the many millions that will be needed not only to prepare land but to provide crucial infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

If the Minister takes nothing else from today’s debate, it should be the commitment of all parties and all players in the Teesside area to ensuring that the site, which sadly no longer produces steel, is seen as a big opportunity, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) said at the start of her speech. With the Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, leading on that, we are in a good position to mobilise everyone to make sure that it happens.

The Labour party has learned some harsh lessons about that. I was the candidate in Redcar in 1992, standing against Marjorie Mowlam. I do not think that Marjorie would have stood by in the way that her successor did, and not fought tooth and nail to keep that site. Labour learned that harsh lesson at the ballot box when a large Labour majority was swept away by a Liberal Democrat who did fight for the site.

[Anna Turley]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the steps taken by the Labour Government at that time mothballed the site and kept it open for another investor to come along and bring it back to life? The problem was that in 2015 this Government just turned off the switch and closed it, when they could have invested and kept it open like the Labour Government did.

[Mr Goodwill]

I would leave that to the people of Redcar, who took that judgment in 2010 and did not feel that their Member of Parliament at the time had the commitment. I would not lay the same charge at the hon. Lady’s door. She has fought tooth and nail for that site, and has possibly learned some of the lessons of the past. People do understand whether a Member really is committed to the local people and industry, rather than seeing a constituency as a convenient place to get elected and then pursuing their career nationally.

As candidate, I visited the site on a number of occasions. At the time the blast furnace was operating at full bore, having recently been refurbished. I was shown two concrete bases on the South Gare site for the second and third blast furnaces that were due to be installed there. Indeed, we visited the basic oxygen steelmaking plant—the BOS plant—which at the time was colouring everything in the area with red dust, so some people in the area might not rue the passing of that big concrete building, which was where the crucibles of iron were blasted with oxygen and turned into steel.

[Mike Hill]

On the subject of steel, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that thankfully the steel industry still thrives to a degree in Hartlepool, where our 84-inch, 42-inch and 20-inch pipe mills have brought much investment and many jobs to the area? While I have the Minister’s attention, will he confirm that as part of the growth for Hartlepool, a replacement for our nuclear power station is very much online, as per discussions that we have had in the past?

[Mr Goodwill]

Absolutely. The steel industry has a future in the UK, but it is in specialist products, such as those produced in Skinningrove and Hartlepool. Sadly, we can no longer compete with the Koreans and Chinese in the production of bulk steel. The steel industry was based on Teesside because of the ironstone and coal mines up the coast. Now that we no longer have that resource on our doorstep, it is more difficult to be competitive in the steel industry, but we have expertise in specialist steels, stainless steels and specialist products, which I believe have a great future. Indeed, we have a strong automotive industry in this country to consume the steel that is being produced. I do think that there is a future for steel in the UK, but sadly it is no longer on the British Steel site that I visited with Peter Lilley, the then Secretary of State for Trade.

I mentioned opportunities on the site. The people of Tees Valley have put their trust in Ben Houchen as Mayor because they have memories of feeling let down in the past. They have opted for optimism, rather than for the negativity that was part of the other side’s campaign. I am very pleased that Ben is working collaboratively with local authorities and with the industry to deliver in the area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) recounted.

I must mention the Sirius mining project, which will transform my constituency. There are already 600 people working on the Woodsmith mine site, boring a mile down the shaft to the polyhalite—an amazing resource that will make the UK a global supplier of fertilisers once again. The Boulby mine is coming to the end of its natural life and has already ceased production of muriate of potash, but it is getting into polyhalite; indeed, I have bought some to use on my own farm. There are opportunities.

[Alex Cunningham]

As the Minister is in the room, it is important to acknowledge that we have only two fertiliser plants in the whole UK, one of which is in Stockton North, my constituency. Both plants are run by CF Fertilisers, and both are extremely worried by the Government’s proposals for a post-Brexit carbon tax, which they believe could ruin their business. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Minister for clarity on the matter, so that the existing fertiliser plants can continue to have a future?

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes. I have visited the Billingham plant, and I know that ammonium nitrate is a very important plant nutrient. The development of shale gas is key. Ammonium nitrate is basically made from air and gas, so without a good, cheap and reliable source of gas, its production is under threat. The sooner we get on with fracking for that gas so that we have our own domestic supply, the better it will be for all the energy-intensive industries on Teesside, not least the fertiliser industry.

The potash site will transform the area by providing jobs, and not only to people in Whitby. Of those who are already working at the Boulby mine, about half are from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, about a quarter are from the constituency of the hon. Member for Redcar, and about a quarter are from my own. We already have a lot of people working in the mining industry, and it is important that they be redeployed as Boulby comes to the end of its natural life. The 23-mile tunnel from Whitby to Teesport is a phenomenal project that people around the world are observing with awe.

We need the Government to get behind the project. The hon. Member for Redcar mentioned Treasury guarantees; this is a very big project for a very small start-up company that will be an FTSE 200 company on the day it opens production. We need that support, because it would be a great shame to see other mining companies from around the world coming in and capitalising on the project after all the work that has gone into it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass those thoughts on to the Treasury, because we need that backing. We are talking about 1,000 full-time jobs in the mining industry for at least 100 years. This is a product that people will always need; as long as people are eating, they will need nitrogen, phosphate and potash. The Woodsmith mine is a great source of potash.

[Alex Cunningham]

As a farmer, the right hon. Gentleman knows all about fertilisers. May I seek clarity on what he said about workers at the Boulby potash mine transferring to the new mine? Is something happening at Boulby that we do not know about?

[Mr Goodwill]

Boulby has been losing staff over the past few years and its production is being scaled down. It is already approaching the end of the muriate of potash seam—the potassium chloride seam—and is now in the lower seam of polyhalite, which is what the Woodsmith mine will produce. All mines have a natural life.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

There is no question but that Boulby has gone through a profound and difficult transition over the past year, with approximately 90 compulsory redundancies, but the owners would certainly want me to emphasise that they are still looking at a long-term future at Boulby. There may well be a transfer of staff between the two mines, but as far as I am aware, Boulby is not under any threat of closure or loss.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the scale of operation at Boulby has reduced because of the switch from potassium chloride, which requires a lot of processing on the site. Polyhalite is a material that can be used straight away without any additional processing, so it qualifies as an organic fertiliser and many producers of organic food can capitalise on it. Indeed, one of the great things about Boulby’s mining polyhalite is that we can now start to develop markets for it around the world as it becomes available. Otherwise, we would not have had a new fertiliser product that is available for field trials, developing countries and big agricultural economies around the world, and that can be sourced from my constituency and exported to the world through that great facility, the deep-water port on the Tees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on securing this important debate. She is a champion not just for her constituents, but for steel communities across our country, and her passion for her local area shone through her speech.

It is clear that, out of crisis, there is an opportunity that must be seized. The news over three years ago that the Redcar blast furnace would be finally turned off was a terrible blow to all of us from steel communities. The closure of SSI marked the time when our country’s steel crisis first made headlines, as steel manufacturing ended in a region that had shaped the industry for 150 years. Despite emerging in the wake of the devastation of such huge job losses, the local master plan represents the best of regeneration. It unites the region around a plan that is ambitious for the communities and businesses of south Tees, and aims to create 20,000 jobs.

As the recent BBC series “The Mighty Redcar” highlighted so well, Redcar is a brilliant town. However, the investment needed to make the plan succeed is enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar laid out, there are huge complexities in securing land and delivering plans. There is a simple truth here: in the last two years, the Government have not been shy of announcing funds and special schemes, or of sprinkling ministerial visits to the site, but the words are not yet matched by delivery of anything like the funds needed. As has been said, much of the funding announced is for the most basic security and remediation work. The Government have a legal duty to keep the site safe, so much of the vaunted £118 million in last year’s Budget is to be used to comply with their legal duty to fund the site and to protect the public from industrial hazards.

The money for specific investment schemes is welcome, but it is far too little. Much more finance is required to complete the most basic infrastructure and land assembly works, let alone create an essential and inspiring mixed-use site at Redcar. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, companies were seriously looking to invest, but now have cold feet because of the Government’s failure to promise the real funds needed for the site.

Public funding has the power to unlock private investment, but it needs to be at a level that gives confidence to investors that the Government stand behind the scheme. Will the Minister use the opportunity he has this morning to outline specifically what further funding the Government will allocate to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the master plan? Will he also confirm that there will be a commitment to the additional powers suggested by my hon. Friends who have spoken so eloquently today, which could help bring the delays to an end? Will he give clarity on the very serious issues surrounding the airport, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)?

Examples such as this of essential schemes being delayed by this Government’s failure to commit highlight why Labour’s infrastructure plans are so important. Success with schemes of this complexity and size is not won cheaply. We must invest to get the outcome that Redcar, the Tees valley and the whole country need. The next Labour Government will have communities such as Redcar at the heart of their programme, and I know that as our infrastructure plans are developed in detail, Teesside will not be forgotten.

I want to make something very clear. The closure of SSI was a consequence of a Government with no plan for steel—a Government who stood by as a great industry teetered on the brink and, in the case of Redcar, closed for the last time. This is an important point, because no doubt we are about to hear from the Minister—although I hesitate to put words in his mouth—about millions of pounds committed for Redcar and the site, special economic zones, and the work that the Government are doing. We should remember this: SSI Redcar collapsed because there was no policy to support British steelmaking properly, on energy costs, on taxation or on investment.

The tragedy is that we have seen very few steps forward in the last three years. Energy costs for British steelmakers are still 50% more than for European competitors, and calls for a fairer business rates system for large producers have been met with silence in Whitehall. Crucially, we still have no steel sector deal for our industry to bring together comprehensive action.

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gill Furniss]

I am sorry; we must get on.

We have waited more than a year since steel companies set out what was needed, but we are yet to see action from this Government. Without that and wider industrial regeneration, there is little safety for other steel towns, and there is not the environment that will deliver success for south Tees.

This summer, Labour launched the Build it in Britain campaign, committing a Labour Government to using the capacity and expertise of Britain’s industries to fulfil far more of the country’s infrastructure needs. A Labour Government would have prevented the collapse of SSI Redcar, stepping in where this Tory Government were unwilling to save jobs and expertise to support the economy.

There will be a future for the south Tees site; I am sure of that. With great Labour women such as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and council leader Sue Jeffrey fighting for their area, I am confident there can be huge success.

I have to say that I found the remarks by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) about the former MP for Redcar, the late Marjorie Mowlam, very distasteful. [Interruption.] You referred to Mo Mowlam.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Yesterday, I spoke to the chief executives of both House of Fraser and Poundworld to properly understand the challenges that those businesses face and what Government can do to support them. The hon. Gentleman talks about a sector deal. I politely point out that it was this Government who had to take action to bring together the Retail Sector Council, a forum in which to develop policies. While the Labour party sits by and watches, this Government are getting on and working with the retail sector to protect those jobs.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

10. If he will make an assessment of the potential contribution of the Sirius Minerals polyhalite project to the industrial strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

The Sirius Minerals polyhalite project has the potential to create 1,000 skilled jobs at the mine near Whitby and on Teesside, with many more jobs in their supply chains. That is an important type of business that will benefit from our industrial strategy, creating skilled jobs in the north of England.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am sure the Minister is aware of the recent Quod report, which shows the long-term economic benefits of this investment. The polyhalite fertiliser mining project does not only bring the 1,000 jobs that the Minister mentioned but is the largest single investment in the north. Product will be exported to the world through Teesport, growing the local economy by almost 20% and adding £2.3 billion to the economy. Does the Minister agree that that is precisely the kind of project that the Government should be getting behind as part of the modern industrial strategy?

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. This is a very important project for him, as the Member of Parliament for Whitby. It is an important developing business, and I agree that it is exactly the kind of business that would benefit from our industrial strategy.