Oral Answers to Questions
Toby Perkins Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend took office shortly after the fiasco of the contracts for difference auction under the previous Government, which did not get a single megawatt of new energy proposed. Since then, we have had tremendous success in boosting the amount of renewable energy, and this country is making tremendous progress. We are moving forward, but what does my right hon. Friend say to people like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who is constantly attempting to undermine the moves this Government are making to decarbonise the grid? Should we not all be celebrating the fact that the industry supports the steps that the Government are taking?
Ed Miliband
I agree with my hon. Friend. He puts it very well. Our renewables auctions have resulted in enough power to power the equivalent of 23 million homes. That is significantly cheaper than building new gas-fired power stations, which is what the shadow Secretary of State wants to do; I am old enough to remember when she was in favour of clean energy—but never mind. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), mentioned London Climate Action Week, and what is so striking is that countries around the world are drawing the same lesson: that we need to electrify and get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster.
Climate Change
Toby Perkins Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho
Well, the hon. Gentleman could not answer the question on jobs. If he had read it, he would know that the Government’s own impact assessment admits that the modelling does not consider any upside, or downside risks, to the economy arising from the energy transition. It specifically says that it does not consider the impact on jobs. That means that Government Members are voting on legislation without any idea of what it is going to mean for the British worker.
The impact assessment is clear and explicit: the modelling does not analyse energy security. The Government do not know what the legislation will mean for the energy security of our nation. The head of Unite was spot on when she said at the weekend that the Secretary of State
“only seems to be interested in one side of the equation, rushing Britain to net zero with almost no thought for jobs, skills and national security.”
The transition has literally not been properly assessed. What is worse is that Government MPs want to make their political points, but none of them seems to care. Considering how much people are struggling and how much growth is flatlining, are Labour Members really happy to wave through those legal targets without the foggiest idea of what it will do to the economy, the cost of living or energy security?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Claire Coutinho
If the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us about the impact on jobs, he is more than welcome to do so.
Mr Perkins
I am happy to do so. Is the right hon. Member aware of the evidence from the Climate Change Committee that says that the cost of doing nothing is more expensive than the cost of everything that is needed for net zero? When she attempts to stand in the way of the transition, what she is actually doing is attempting to pile up the costs on British business and consumers, and on the sustainability of our country. She should understand the impact of her policies, rather than attempting to row back on one of the few things the previous Government should have been proud of.
Claire Coutinho
I will come to the evidence of the Climate Change Committee in a second, but first I note that once again, a Member from the Labour Benches cannot cite an overall figure on jobs—I would have thought that the Labour party would be able to cite a figure on jobs.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I very much welcome the draft Carbon Budget Order 2026, which sets the level of the seventh carbon budget on the way to our long-term and previously cross-party aim to balance the UK’s carbon emissions by 2050.
I have to say that the speech we have just heard from the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) was quite remarkable because, at the most fundamental level, it failed to understand what we are doing today. The sixth carbon budget passed by the previous Government in 2020 only got its delivery plan in 2025. Today, we are debating our aim for 2038 to 2042. At this moment, it is not prescriptive about how we get there. That is why, at the most fundamental level, the shadow Secretary of State did not understand what she was debating, and why she failed to get answers to some of the questions that she thought should be answered. I am afraid that, at the most fundamental level, she was on the wrong path.
Peter Swallow
My hon. Friend is making an important point. I have been contacted by many constituents who have engaged with the “People’s Emergency Briefing” campaign. One of its key asks is greater public awareness of the effects of climate change. Does he agree that the Government should do more to make sure that people are aware of the effects of climate change? Perhaps we could start with the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Perkins
That is a very good place to start, because the shadow Secretary of State suggested that the Climate Change Committee has attempted to silence her. It has not attempted to silence her. What it attempted to do, on a point of fact, was inform her of the basis on which her letter to the committee was wrong. This was not a matter of opinion; the Climate Change Committee was simply explaining to her where the cost of electricity comes from. My hon. Friend makes a good point.
The shadow Secretary of State talked about transparency, which is interesting because the fact that we are having a debate on the seventh carbon budget is completely different from what happened on the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets. The sixth carbon budget, under the previous Government, was approved in 17 minutes in a Delegated Legislation Committee, far away from public scrutiny. These are crucial matters. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that they will have wide-ranging impacts on all of us, and they should be debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome that this Government, unlike the previous one, have brought this forward and reserved time to debate it.
In debating this order, it is so disappointing that the political consensus that previously existed has evaporated. It lasted from the Labour Government’s seminal introduction of the Climate Change Act 2008, which was strengthened and updated in 2019 by the Conservative Government. With the introduction of the Climate Change Act and the pathway to net zero, Britain was world-leading in our ambition. The approach was so admired that, far from what the shadow Secretary of State said, it was copied by many other legislatures. How tragic that the Opposition should choose to jettison one of the greatest achievements in their 14 years in government in the face of a threat from the climate deniers in Reform.
The approach pursued by successive Governments is working. Since 1990, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions have been cut by 54%. At the same time, the UK economy has grown.
Richard Tice
Will the hon. Gentleman just answer a very simple question, as this is in the Labour manifesto and the Secretary of State bangs on about it week after week? When will energy bills and electricity bills come down?
Mr Perkins
There are many different things that impact energy prices. We have seen £150 taken off the price of bills. I think there is more that can be done to reduce electricity prices, and I will come to that.
The reality is that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of a greater reliance on gas and oil. If anything is explained to us, it is that we have no control over energy prices while we are reliant on gas and oil. Everything that has happened since 2022—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman puts his head in his hands. I say to him that the amount that the Government spent in 2022 to cover the cost of the increase in energy prices caused by the start of the Ukraine war was greater than the cost of everything that we will do on net zero between now and 2050. That is the reality: £44 billion pounds was spent propping up people’s gas, electricity and fuel bills at the time of that crisis. That is why we need to get away from that dependence.
As I was saying, since 1990, the UK economy has grown, partly powered by the green economy, which last year was found to be growing at three times the rate of the rest of the economy, providing jobs and growth across the country. The most recent CCC assessment found that the UK remains among the leading group of countries that demonstrate sustained emissions reductions. The transition is the pro-business choice. This year’s CBI and Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit report on the net zero economy found that green businesses and their supply chains generated £105 billion in gross value added for the UK economy, as well as supporting over 20,000 small businesses and a million jobs.
Dame Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, with which I very much agree. I want us to tackle climate change as fast as possible, and to accelerate the bringing online of that cheap, clean energy that will help both households and businesses. Does he, however, understand the pressures on the automotive industry? Will he join me in asking the Minister to look carefully at a rescheduling of current targets so that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction, but instead have a long-term plan that industry can sign up to, which would provide the certainty that is needed in that particular sphere while we battle on with the other things we are doing to bring down emissions?
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will come to the zero emission vehicle mandate shortly. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that we need to be careful that we do not just offshore emissions, so I will come to some of the stuff that we need to do about energy-intensive industries. None the less, I think it is important that we give business the certainty that it requires.
During the EAC’s inquiry into carbon budget 7, we heard time and again from business and investors that a long-term plan and policy certainty are needed. The forthcoming delivery plan and CB7 are exactly the sort of long-term planning that businesses need to have confidence about the UK’s direction of travel, in order to invest and innovate. As a world leader on clean energy, our approach puts Britain on the front foot in a globally competitive and quickly changing world.
The setting of the seventh carbon budget today is not just a technical milestone but a statement of our long-term ambition to secure the UK’s economic future and our competitiveness on the global stage, alongside a greener and healthier future for our children. The EAC analysis confirms that the pathway to CB7 is both credible and achievable. It is clear that, although they accept the overall figure, the Government will not adopt all the approaches suggested by the CCC, and the delivery plan that the Government adopt is what will dictate the success or otherwise of CB7. That is why the shadow Secretary of State was unable to get answers to all the questions she was posing. This provides an overall framework but it is not the Government’s delivery plan. It is within the delivery plan that we might expect to get some of the answers to the shadow Secretary of State’s questions, which she would have known if she understood what the carbon budget order process was all about.
The Climate Change Committee has said:
“The slow pace of electrification is putting the UK’s climate targets at risk and is a missed opportunity to enhance UK energy security in the face of rising threats, leaving the UK exposed to geopolitical shocks…Following the recent increase in fossil fuel prices, bills have increased almost four times more for a typical household with a gas boiler and a petrol car, compared to a household with a heat pump and an EV.”
People need to know how net zero will result in a stronger, more resilient economy, lower bills and greener and healthier places to live.
The EAC’s report is tagged to the debate today, and I would like to place on record my thanks to Committee specialist Dawn Amey for her work on that really important report. Our report identifies several areas in which further action is needed to achieve the seventh carbon budget. I would like to highlight just three. First, the Committee identified that bringing down energy bills and making electrification attractive and affordable was fundamental to making the green transition work for businesses and people. This Government are accelerating the roll-out of renewables in Britain and investing in grid and network infrastructure, both of which will have the effect of bringing down bills, but more action is needed. We recommended removing further policy costs from energy bills and putting them on to general taxation. This will improve the cost differential for making cleaner choices for households and industry.
Mr Perkins
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will move straight on.
Secondly, we heard again and again from businesses that long-term policy certainty and delivery across Government was crucial. Thirdly, we heard that fairness was key. The green transition is necessary and brings huge potential benefits, but it must be done in a way that brings people and businesses along. Decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation. Forcing production to relocate abroad weakens the UK’s industrial base and undermines support for decarbonisation while failing to reduce global emissions.
In summary, the path laid out by this order is credible and achievable. The goal is a vital one—indeed, this is the fight of our age—but it must be done in a way that allows our economy and our people to thrive, and ensures that it is fairly distributed so that it is accessible to all. The prize is not just a more sustainable future but quite possibly the future of our race on this planet.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
All Back Benchers will now be on a five-minute speaking limit, but first I come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Richard Tice
What a tragedy it is that the truth clearly hurts for the Green party; and, by the way, the Greens do not believe in carbon capture, which has been mentioned previously.
The simple fact is that there is a direct relationship between higher energy use per capita and higher GDP per capita—the richer a nation is. That is the fundamental point that everybody in this place seems to forget. As we have reduced our carbon emissions since 1990 by 54%, people seem to forget that carbon emissions around the world are increasing. Other nations are not admiring our net zero leadership; they are laughing at our utter stupidity, as they steal our jobs and our money. They are laughing at us.
Mr Perkins
Well, I think they might be laughing at him, but I do not think they are laughing at all of us. The hon. Member is talking about our climate leadership as though we should be ashamed of it, but the reality is that China installed more solar panels in 2024 than the entire world did in 2023. China is not ignoring the opportunity to transition; it is leading the way.
Richard Tice
And what labour are the Chinese using? Slave labour is what they are using—that is the reality. They are laughing as they sell us Chinese cheap solar panels to cover our brilliant food-productive farmland in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. It is insane.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment, and I would like to thank all my constituents who write to me so regularly about environment issues. I also want to give a big shout-out to South Thames college and its net zero training hub, which has been built in response to so much demand for green jobs in our local area and is really helping to boost the net zero economy in south-west London.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the seventh carbon budget in this London Climate Action Week, on this the hottest June day on record ever. This week’s heatwave is a stark reminder of what is at stake. Climate change is no longer a distant threat sometime in the future; it is here now, affecting lives, livelihoods and public services across our country, and especially in London. The question is whether we respond with the urgency that this moment demands and the long-term thinking that this carbon budget demonstrates. We are seeing the consequences of extreme heat in transport, in halting rail services, in pressurising our energy system and in forcing school closures, with more than 1,000 today alone.
Fleur Anderson
I am sorry, but I am afraid I will not.
This extreme heat creates unsafe working conditions, especially for those in physical roles, like my son who is on a construction site today. Food production is at risk, productivity falls, services stretch and working people pay the price too often. The human toll has not been talked about in this debate so far, but it is sobering. Last summer, the hottest on record, was linked to more than 1,500 heat-related deaths in England alone. Without decisive action, these consequences will only intensify.
Carbon budget 7 provides what we need most and what businesses need most, which is clarity. With a stable long-term direction, investment will follow, supporting jobs, strengthening supply chains and driving innovation. We are already seeing this in the UK’s growing net zero economy. It also delivers wider co-benefits, including warmer homes, lower bills, cleaner air and better public health. This is about improving lives—for example, by improving the air quality in Putney. It is welcome news that in London, deaths linked to toxic air have reduced by 40% in five years as a result of the policies brought in by the Mayor, including clean buses and the ultra-low emission zone.
Public support remains strong, but confidence in delivery is weaker. Too often, people cannot see that clear path to net zero, and that is why carbon budget 7 really matters. It does not just set the destination; it gives confidence in the journey. We need more affordable heat pumps, more car clubs, more trees and more council insulation projects. While I support the Government’s approach, I want to raise a serious concern about the expansion of Heathrow airport, which is projected to add 9 million tonnes of emissions each year. How does that square with what we are doing to reduce emissions across every sector? I draw attention to the Heathrow expansion national policy statement, or HENPS—not very snappy, but it is very important. The consultation was launched last week, and I hope that anyone listening, especially my constituents in Putney, will get involved in it. How does this align with our commitments under carbon budget 7?
Sojan Joseph
I was coming on to talk about my own local council, where we are facing problems. Local authority involvement is all the more important given the fracturing of the long-standing cross-party consensus. We now hear voices, particularly from Reform UK, who would simply abandon net zero altogether. Walking away from the challenge would not protect our constituents, but leave them more exposed to higher energy bills, energy insecurity and the growing impacts of climate change itself. Where there is opposition at a national, regional or local level, it is important that the Government are proactive in setting out the explicit case for the net zero agenda as well as the tangible benefits of particular policies.
Let me draw on an example from my own local authority. Last year, the Government made £25 million of funding available through the electric vehicle pavement channels grant. That funding was for local authorities to install cross-pavement channels to support residents without access to off-street parking so that they could charge their vehicles at home and benefit from cheaper domestic tariffs.
I had concerns about how the grant was being used in Kent, so I wrote to Kent county council. In response, the Reform-led administration said that the council had decided not to submit an application for the grant. As a result, of the £667,000 of funding that could have been available to the people of Kent, the council received only £50,000. That represents a shortfall of well over half a million pounds of funding that could have been used to help my constituents. That is deeply disappointing at a time when the Labour Government are putting forward practical support to help households with the transition to net zero.
Mr Perkins
What my hon. Friend has just revealed is absolutely shocking. Does that not show that even at a local authority level, Reform will put its ideology in the way of helping businesses and individuals to bring their bills down?
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree. Hundreds and hundreds of constituents would like to drive an electric car but have no access to home charging, and they would have benefited from that funding. Yes, we are talking about taxpayers’ money, but by not becoming an energy-secure country, we are only helping countries like Russia.
Given the urgency of meeting our national emissions targets, it is essential that no opportunity for progress is left unused. Will the Department work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as well as other relevant Departments, to take a more proactive and co-ordinated approach? That should include identifying barriers that prevent local authorities from applying for funding, improving communication about available schemes, and providing practical support where needed.
In particular, will the Government consider measures such as offering targeted guidance or even establishing a more strategic framework to ensure that funding reaches all parts of the country effectively? By strengthening collaboration across Departments and supporting local authorities more directly, we can help to ensure that councils are fully equipped to access the funding available to them and, in doing so, maximise our collective ability to deliver on the UK’s climate commitments.
Energy Security
Toby Perkins Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (i), at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech commits to banning the issuance of licences to explore new oil and gas fields; recognise that this proposal will have a particularly negative impact on Aberdeen, the North East of Scotland and the wider UK economy; believe instead the Government must approve the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field, which would boost UK energy security; urge the Government to drop its opposition to new oil and gas licences and instead legislate for a presumption in favour of approving new licences, and permit the exporting of oil and gas technology overseas; further regret the cancellation of a third large-scale nuclear power plant at Wylfa; and further urge the Government to abolish the ‘carbon tax’ regime to avoid more refinery closures, protect the domestic supply of refined products, and reduce the tax burden on UK industry.”
This may be our last meeting across the Dispatch Box, because the Secretary of State is once again on manoeuvres. Considering that he is gunning for a promotion, let us review his record, shall we? He promised in the election that he would cut everybody’s energy bills by £300. What has he delivered? Energy bills are up by £200 thanks to his plans. He said that he would protect pensioners, but weeks into office he axed the winter fuel payment—a policy that many Labour MPs have cited as their worst political decision in power.
The Secretary of State promised that Great British Energy would lead to a mind-blowing reduction in bills. Yet, two years in, it has not taken a penny off household bills, but has given a six-figure salary to one of his mates. Now, we learn that Great British Energy has been putting solar panels, made by Chinese slave labour, on British primary schools—something that the Secretary of State promised to this House that he would not do. What is next? Oh, that’s right: the Secretary of State said that he could control the price of wind. However, his botched wind auction signed us up to the highest prices in a decade—way more than the cost of electricity that he inherited.
Promise after broken promise, bills up, pensioners betrayed, six-figure salaries for his mates and eye-watering contracts for wind developers—now, to top it all off, a so-called energy independence Bill that would shut down the North sea, in the greatest act of industrial self-harm in a generation. If that is what gets someone a promotion in the Labour party, Lord help us all.
Let us turn to the so-called energy independence Bill. For true energy independence, we need our own oil and gas, but the Bill enforces the wilful destruction of the North sea. We need our own petrol, diesel and jet fuel, but the Bill does nothing to save our refineries, which are being taxed into oblivion. We need an electricity system that keeps the lights on for British households and industry, but his plan will leave us at the mercy of foreign imports. That is not independence; it doesn’t even come close. It is an energy dependence Bill that would leave us weaker, poorer and more reliant on foreign regimes.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State said that for energy independence we need our own oil and gas, rather than investing in renewables. She will know that her Government paid £44 billion to subsidise our energy during the time of the Ukraine price spike. Will she tell us by how much our bills were reduced as a result of having our own oil and gas when the Ukraine crisis happened?
Claire Coutinho
First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that bills came down £500 under me; they have gone up by £200 because of the Secretary of State’s plans. Secondly, let me tell him another hard truth. He should listen to this; he might learn something. Cutting off production in the North sea does not mean that we use any less oil and gas. Production is not linked to consumption. All it means is that we will import more of that gas from abroad. That is weaker and it makes us more reliant on imports.
Claire Coutinho
He used up his chance; he should have asked a better question.
There are some parts of this work that I welcome. The Fingleton review is impressive. I thank those involved and, as I have made clear before, we will support that work going forward. Nuclear is the only form of energy that can provide round-the-clock, totally clean power, and I will always support policies that make it as easy as possible to build.
There is a catch, however. The Secretary of State says he wants to ease nuclear regulations while, at the very same time, he has cancelled the project that they would be used on. By cancelling the third large-scale nuclear power station that I signed off, he has killed the nuclear pipeline. He is repeating his own mistakes. We are set to have yet another Labour Government who fail to start a single new large-scale nuclear power plant, and now we hear that Natural England is adding yet more delays to Hinkley Point C for little environmental gain. Is he fighting that? No. He is defending the status quo.
By the end of this Parliament we will still be waiting for a decision as to whether small modular reactors will go ahead, by 2030 there will be less nuclear online than there is now, and in 2035, which is 10 years away, the Government still will not have started any new large-scale nuclear power plants in this country. That is the same old stop-start approach that killed the industry to begin with. If that is what the Secretary of State calls being ambitious for nuclear, he needs to give his head a wobble.
Ed Miliband
I am always happy to work with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, as are my team of Ministers.
Mr Perkins
The shadow Secretary of State did not take my second intervention when I attempted to get an answer from her. We know that Conservative Members propose to get rid of the energy profits levy, costing the Government about £12 billion, and they want to get rid of VAT, costing about £5 billion or £6 billion. We know they have a plan for oil or gas that might be here in four or 10 years, although it is owned by somebody else, and they believe they will use that collection of policies to reduce people’s energy prices. Does my right hon. Friend see any credibility in the plans from Conservative Members that he can share with us, because we have not heard it from them?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes his point incredibly well, and I do want to say something about renewables before I move on. At the time of the AR7 auction, the right hon. Member for East Surrey said that we should cancel that auction. As I said, that auction secured power for the equivalent of 16 million homes—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members could listen for a second. That included offshore wind at prices that are 40% cheaper to build and operate than new gas. At the time, the right hon. Lady shouted out from a sedentary position “Gas is falling!”, as a justification for her position—[Interruption.] She did say that. Today, the gas price is around 50% higher than it was then.
There is a really important point here: there can be no clearer demonstration of the gamble that Conservative Members wanted us to take. What a terrible call; what a foolish position. We are at a time of the greatest geopolitical instability in generations. Anyone who would rationally learn the lessons from when Russia invaded Ukraine would say, “We cannot gamble on low fossil fuel prices, because this is what happens.”
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
His Majesty’s Gracious Speech set out a legislative programme for the Government, including plans to build our national security, our economic security and our energy security. I welcome this agenda, which is consistent with the manifesto on which my hon. Friends and I were elected. I urge all members of the Government to exhibit a relentless urgency, and a focus on delivery of that programme, to ensure that the ambition is matched by its impact.
We were elected in 2024 on a mandate for change—for national renewal—after 14 years of decline under the Tories. As for the achievements, there is a great deal that I could focus on, if I had more time, but I want to deal specifically with the national health service, migration—on which there have been very positive announcements recently—the minimum wage increase, and workers’ and renters’ rights. This is a Government who are delivering on their agenda. Despite the prophets of doom on the Opposition Benches, the most recent figures once again show unemployment continuing to fall and the fastest growth in the G7 in the last quarter.
So many of the fundamentals are going in the right direction, but anyone who spent time attempting to persuade voters to vote Labour in the recent elections will have been left in no doubt but that our voters remain unconvinced that we are going fast enough or far enough to bring about the change they want. I would like to focus on some specific measures in His Majesty’s Gracious Speech that I particularly welcome.
First, on the energy independence Bill, I very much welcome the Government’s action to protect households and industry from global instability by powering forward with clean, home-grown energy to create energy independence and get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster. Both the energy independence Bill and the nuclear regulation Bill will strengthen our resilience to energy price shocks for the long term and bring down the cost of bills for families.
As has been said, during the Ukraine crisis the Government at the time paid to subsidise customers’ bills, because we were so dependent on global markets. The intervention that the Government made—politically, I think they had to make it because of the impact in the number of people who would have gone under—cost the British taxpayer £44 billion in a single year. The idea that the response to the further global insecurity of the Iran war is to reduce investment in renewables is quite mad. So I welcome the Government’s two further Bills, and I absolutely support the increase in nuclear that this Government are getting on with after the dither and delay of the previous Government.
It was quite remarkable to hear the speech of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who on the one hand said the Government have not done enough on nuclear in two years, and on the other hand said that the Government cannot blame the Conservatives for 14 years of inaction, because the previous Government got in the way of it. It was absolutely incoherent.
The exchange of letters between the shadow Secretary of State and the chair of the Climate Change Committee, and I encourage everyone to look at them, made it clear that when she voted against allocation round 7, she simply did not understand what she was talking about in terms of the difference between an LCOE—a levelised cost of energy—and contracts for difference. So when she says that we should follow her advice, we should treat that with the greatest of scepticism.
I should also say that I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on the need to reduce energy bills far more to help with the cost of living, but also to ease the green transition, benefit consumers and support industry in this country.
The King’s Speech also has a clean water Bill, and alongside climate action we do need nature action. Nature is the foundation of our national economic security, and we cannot tackle climate change without restoring nature. The Government made a promise to clean up Britain’s rivers and seas, and I am delighted to see this clean water Bill in the King’s Speech—not only in tackling water industry reform, which is crucial, but in recognising the need to tackle agricultural water pollution and road-based water pollution.
I welcome the European partnership Bill, because it is important that we work more closely with our European partners, and I fully support what the Government are doing on apprenticeships, because apprenticeships and greater investment in adult education are absolutely crucial if we are to equip tomorrow’s workers with the skills they need to support industry. So there are many measures in this King’s Speech that can make a real difference—there is also the need to go further and faster—and I look forward to supporting it later.
Energy Markets
Toby Perkins Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I absolutely recognise the challenges that many businesses faced even before the crisis. It is important to say that even before the crisis began, fossil fuel prices were still 40% higher than before Russia invaded Ukraine, and businesses were facing the impacts of that.
We are taking action this April on the supercharger, but that is for only 500 or so of the most energy-intensive businesses. We are also taking action next April on the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is for 7,000 businesses, but I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Just as we are looking across Government at the situation that households face, and working on that, we are looking at the impact on businesses; indeed, I was talking to my colleague the Secretary of State for Business and Trade yesterday.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to expose the utter folly of responding to the situation that faces us by saying, “We need to stop with renewables and invest more in oil and gas.” It would be utter madness to learn that lesson. When we had the huge price spike as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fact that oil and gas was coming from the UK made no difference to the amount that our consumers paid, because it was all on the global market.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the marginal pricing system, which was set up at a time when 80% or 90% of energy was being generated by fossil fuels, is far less robust at a time when the figure for gas is down to 40% and shrinking the entire time, and more than 50% of our energy comes from renewable sources? Because renewables are cheaper, should we not look to benefit from that, rather than having a system that allows gas to set the price, even if it accounts for only 1% of our energy?
Warm Homes Plan
Toby Perkins Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is because we recognise the immediacy of the affordability crisis that we took the action we did in the Budget to take £150 of costs off bills. It is because we recognise the affordability crisis that we significantly increased the numbers eligible for the warm home discount, for which I think hundreds of thousands more people in Scotland are now eligible. I would point out that the Scottish Government have some responsibility here, having cut some of their own schemes, but we want to work with the Scottish Government and do all we can to help his constituents.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has once again pulled quite a rabbit out of the Chancellor’s hat, so I congratulate him on that. He is clearly her favourite Secretary of State.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we know what happens when we do not rely on renewables? The previous Government had to pay £44 billion to subsidise bills, at the same time that our constituents were struggling to pay them. I agree with the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), that we still need to be driving down electricity costs. What does the Secretary of State think are the key things we can do to address the skills shortages in the heat pump installation sector, and how many heat pumps should we expect to be installed by 2030?
Ed Miliband
The target we are setting in this plan for 2030 is 450,000. Our skills taskforce is designed to do what my hon. Friend set out, which is to meet the skills needs—the very significant skills needs—we are going to have.
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I do think that the Chancellor deserves real credit for this plan, because she has recognised the importance of long-term public investment, which the last Government singularly did not. The easy thing in difficult times is to cut public investment, but she did not do that. She has increased it, and she is investing very significantly in this area.
Oral Answers to Questions
Toby Perkins Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
There are many corporate customers who are keen to decarbonise but find that grid connection forecasts of five or more years stand in their way. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to speed up business connections to the grid and to ensure that we prioritise those business customers who will make the biggest difference in decarbonising?
COP30
Toby Perkins Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
That is an absolutely fair question; it is one I ask myself a lot. Are we doing everything we can despite the global pressures and how difficult it is? I will tell the House this: as it looked like we were going to end up with no deal, I thought a lot about what signal that would send. At the same time, though, we wanted to have as robust an agreement as possible. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s very legitimate question is yes; we are trying to do absolutely everything we can, but it is hard because 190-something countries are all wrestling with their own dilemmas and constraints. However, he is right to push us to do as much as we can, because we are the generation that both knows the scale of the crisis that confronts us and has the chance to do something about it. Future generations will have less opportunity to do anything about it because the pathway will be more set. He is absolutely right to push us.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Meeting international colleagues at COP30, the extent to which the UK’s track record and the policy of this Government are hugely respected was absolutely clear. In fact, while many of the steps this Government have taken received huge support, there was also great respect for the steps that the previous Government had taken. I share my right hon. Friend’s despair that the current version of the Conservative party not only opposes his policies, but trashes its own history, which—in this area at least—should be a proud one.
While I absolutely believe that we would not have got the statement that we did get without his work and the work of his colleagues over there, does the Secretary of State agree that it is disappointing that the road map towards the eradication of fossil fuels was not agreed? On that basis, what more will he be doing to try to bring that coalition together to get greater agreement when we get to Turkey next year, or even before that?
Ed Miliband
First, I thank my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, for the really outstanding job they do. I think the observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) on the Conservative party are right; I will not add to them because he put them well.
The transition away is the hardest part of the negotiations, as I said, and that is not surprising, because some countries are extremely reliant on fossil fuels and are very reluctant—I think, in retrospect, they are quite reluctant about what was agreed at COP28, which is part of the difficulties we have. I agree with my hon. Friend about continuing to push for this to be part of the negotiations, but I think we also have to accept, as I said in my statement, that part of what we did on coal—and, to be fair, what the previous Government did on coal—is work with others. We have to work as much as we can both inside and outside the formal negotiations with others to drive these issues forward. The lesson of COP history is that we keep pushing forward on these issues; it might be slightly three steps forward, two steps back, but we do make progress.
State of Climate and Nature
Toby Perkins Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I really want to get everybody in—I am sure the Secretary of State wants that—so I need a lot of help from those on the Front Bench to speed things up. A good example will be set by Toby Perkins, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I share the Secretary of State’s despair at the fact that the consensus on these matters appears to be dissipating. Does he agree that this is incredibly damaging for investment in the sector? Investors really need to see that whoever is in government, and whatever happens in elections, they have a Government who are committed to this agenda. Does he agree that it is completely wrong to say that Britain is the only country taking this issue seriously? In fact, China is absolutely leading the way in investing in the necessary technologies. We need to catch up and ensure that everyone knows that Britain is open for business in this sector.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend, who speaks with such expertise on these matters, is 100% right. The biggest enemy of investment is uncertainty. That is why I appeal to all parties to stick to what we have legislated for in this country, in order to give that certainty.
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
Toby Perkins Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
To be clear, I am not suggesting that I cannot comment because of particular legal action. My Department will have responsibility for making the decisions, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice that process by giving my view on those applications in Parliament or anywhere else. That is entirely how such applications end up back in court, and that is what I am determined to avoid.
We clearly outlined the question of licensing at the election: we will not issue new licences to explore new fields, existing licences will be honoured, and we will not remove licences from fields that already have a licence. However, consents—the point at which extraction takes place—must take into account climate tests, and not least the compatibility test laid down by the Supreme Court. Any applications now or in future must take account of that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The sixth carbon budget was put in place by the previous Government. It was pretty ambitious, and it is now for this Government to identify how it will be achieved. The Minister seems to be taking an entirely practical approach, and I commend him for that, but can he assure us that the Government will ensure that any new applications will be approved only if they can achieve any offsets or mitigations in their own right, so that we keep in line with the carbon budgets that are in place, which we are legally obliged to achieve?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend touches on some of the key questions that we asked in the consultation, which closed just a few weeks ago and to which we had a significant number of responses. The Supreme Court’s judgment requires us to look at some of the tests that he mentioned—particularly whether there are offsets or mitigations—and we will announce how we will put that into effect in due course.
On the guidance that comes from the consultation, we have only just closed the consultation and are working as fast as possible on the results from that. However, applicants for consents will absolutely have to take account of the scope 3 emissions. It will be for them to outline in their applications how they intend to mitigate any impacts to achieve such consents.
Biomass Generation
Toby Perkins Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Her tone means that I will resist the urge to say that, although I made fun of the shadow Minister for the eight announcements, it was of course the current Liberal Democrat leader who agreed the first support deal for Drax. But we will move past that on to her important questions about security of supply.
The place we want to get to by the end of this period is one where we are not forced into making a decision like this again. It is really important to say that. We have a strong deal that protects bill payers, improves sustainability and delivers energy security, but we want to have options. The truth, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, is that we came into government without those options because of the decisions made by the Conservative party. That is a really important point.
As for the point about excess profits, there was previously no mechanism to claw them back. We made that a key part of the negotiation and we managed to get it into the deal. Even if our estimates are wrong—and the estimates, of course, mean that the profit will be below the level expected of the regulated companies by Ofgem—we can claw back the additional profit from Drax. That is important to the system.
Both the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister raised the question of KPMG’s reports. I know that my Department has seen them and engaged with them, and I know that Ofgem is still engaged in the audit process. I will take those questions away and see what can be done about sharing those reports.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We have a new line from the official Opposition. We are told that they are a firm under new management, but this sounds to me like the same circus, just with different clowns.
The Minister is right to say that the new deal that the Government are putting in place is a far better deal for taxpayers, because the previous deal was an absolute disgrace for taxpayers, but can he tell us a little more about the projections that he has seen? Do they confirm that this deal is the best for taxpayers, even in comparison with gas? How can he be certain of that? We heard a different suggestion from the shadow Minister.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think we should consider two aspects of the analysis of the importance of Drax to the system. First, in comparison with the counterfactual of building new gas-fired power stations, our analysis is that the deal we have agreed, which involves the use of gas on the system for 27% of the time, costs £170 million less. Secondly, on energy security, the assessment is that even if we wanted to go down that route, there would be risks about whether we could build that capacity in the time that we have.
This is all about the decisions taken by the last Government, who did not look far enough ahead and did not have that capacity on the system. Even if we did want to proceed with new gas stations, there would be questions about whether we could build them in time. This deal is about protecting bill payers, halving the subsidy from £1 billion and ensuring that there is dispatchable power when we need it as we build the clean power system.
As we move towards the 2030s, what comes next is long-term planning for a clean power mix, but also about the long-duration and short-duration storage mixes that will help us to make decisions that are different from the one we were forced to make this time.