Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the cost-of-living crisis hitting families across the country and that the energy price cap is predicted to rise by 50 per cent from April; recognises that rocketing energy prices are hitting businesses as well as household budgets; calls on the Government to introduce a windfall tax on the profits of North Sea oil and gas producers; and further calls on the Government to use that windfall tax to help fund a package of support for families and businesses facing the energy price crisis.

In the last few days, we have often heard the Government say that they are desperate to talk about the biggest issues facing the country. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has lined up to say that there is nothing they would rather do than end the distractions and talk about the burning issues facing people. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, where are they all? Where are they? Today, we are giving them—[Interruption.] There are a few of them, but not very many. Today, we are giving them and the House the chance to talk about those issues, and there is no bigger issue facing families than the energy price crisis. For months, we have waited for the Government to tell us what it is that they are going to do and there has been silence. Today, we are making a generous offer to focus on what really matters and to give them the chance to support the principle of a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies to help to address the energy crisis.

Let me set out the case. In just six days’ time, we will know the scale of the price cap increase to be announced by Ofgem. It is expected, on the latest gas prices, that there will be a £600 increase in the cap, on top of the £120 increase we have already seen. April’s increase alone is expected to drag 1.5 million more families into fuel poverty. Let us be absolutely clear what that means. Consider a recent Citizens Advice case of a man in his 60s from Devon who had given up his job as an engineer when he was diagnosed with spinal cancer. He had been claiming universal credit but cannot work and recently saw that drop by £20 a week. He told Citizens Advice:

“I don’t buy the things I need to buy. I’m constantly looking at the bank account. I put things off as I can’t afford the petrol to drive. I feel isolated and stressed, but what can I do? I’m living in one room to keep the heat down as low as I possibly can, but everything is just mounting up. It’s direct debit after direct debit.”

I have had similar cases in Doncaster. This is the reality facing millions in our country, and that is before the price cap has actually gone up. It is against the backdrop of inflation running at nearly 6% and the national insurance rise on top. So people are facing very difficult times. Businesses, too, are facing great difficulty as a result of what is happening.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s version of the energy price cap, along with “use it or lose it” penalties on developers, banning letting fees for tenants and gender pay gap reporting, have his fingerprints all over them from our 2015 Labour manifesto, but that, unfortunately, they have made the schoolboy error of copying homework incorrectly? That is why we now need a windfall tax to rectify those errors. In a parallel universe—the Miliverse—this was done right, but sadly it has been done all wrong by them!

[Edward Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am old enough to remember when an energy price cap was living in a “Marxist universe” and now it is Government policy.

The Federation for Small Businesses reports that 45% of members are seeing soaring costs from higher energy bills. Meanwhile, the Energy Intensive Users Group, representing vital industries such as steel and pharmaceuticals, has called repeatedly for “immediate action”.

This is an economic crisis plain and simple. What is extraordinary is that the Government, months into the crisis, have not produced a single solution. Where is the solution? There can be no greater evidence of a Government paralysed by inaction. Millions of families who want reassurance are instead subject to the spectacle of a rule-breaking Prime Minister still too distracted by trying to save his own skin.

Our case today is that millions of struggling families should not be left to face this situation alone and that we should do all we can to act. It is right to look to those benefiting from this crisis to make a contribution.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is highlighting this issue. Does he agree that gas prices are a lot dearer in Europe and the UK than they are in America because we are short of gas here? Would it not therefore be a good idea for us to get more gas out of our North sea to ease the squeeze?

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I differ somewhat on this. The real problem is that we have not gone far enough or fast enough on the green transition. The more we are subject to the volatility of fossil fuels—the prices are set internationally—the more we are at risk of the kind of crisis we are seeing at the moment.

If there is one principle that should get us through these tough times, it is that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. Britain’s families and businesses are facing the toughest times, but that is not true of everyone. For the oil and gas sector, the price spike has been a bonanza—a trebling of prices today compared with a year ago. Let us be clear about the effect that is having on oil and gas company profits.

Listen to Bernard Looney, the chief executive of BP. He says this: the rise in prices is a “cash machine” for his company. Those were his words—a “cash machine”. Let those words ring in the ears of right hon. and hon. Members in this House. Let us be clear about who is on the other side of the cash machine: the British people. In other words, it is an ATM from which the oil and gas companies collect billions and into which the British people pay—people like the man in Devon who could only afford to heat one room. He is one of the millions paying into the cash machine for BP.

Once the companies are withdrawing the cash from the cash machine, where is the unexpected windfall going? Let us not fall for the argument that may be made in this debate—that it is somehow going into investment or workers in the oil and gas sector. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) says from a sedentary position that it is. Let me tell him that he is wrong. All the evidence is that the companies are so flush with cash that billions are being used to inflate the share price in buybacks from shareholders. BP did a share buyback of over £1 billion in August, but it was so overwhelmed with cash that it did another worth nearly £1 billion in November. Shell has done the same, with a £1.1 billion share buyback in December. But that is not enough: it says it will do another one, worth £4 billion, at pace, in 2022.

This is simply a redistribution of wealth from the energy bills of the British people—those who can least afford it—to the shareholders of those companies. The question before us, then, is one that has confronted previous Governments: should we do something about the situation or say that it is wrong to take account of the windfall in the tax decisions that we make? I say that it is not wrong to take account of it—it is fair and it is right and it is principled.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is setting out the problem, but the trouble is that his solutions do not add up. Does he acknowledge that last year Shell and BP, the two largest oil and gas producers, posted a £26.9 billion and £22.5 billion loss respectively? How much would his windfall tax get from those situations? Does he also acknowledge that the biggest investments in renewable energy—not least hydrogen, into which hundreds of billions are being invested—come from companies such as BP and Shell, which we need to continue investing in alternative non-fossil fuels?

[Edward Miliband]

I will answer all the hon. Gentleman’s points. We would raise £1.2 billion from the windfall tax. I will come to this later in my speech, but the tax position is incredibly generous for companies, including Shell and BP. He says that their money is going into renewables, but I am afraid that he is not correct. Shell’s near-term plans involve investment of just £2 billion to £3 billion in low carbon activities and £8 billion on upstream fossil fuel production. It is just greenwash to say that these companies have somehow moved out of fossil fuels and into renewables. The truth is that when profits have risen by billions and billions and when billions are being paid out in share buybacks, it is not credible that somehow a one-off tax rise, taking just a small proportion of the windfall profits that these companies did not expect, will somehow lead to a collapse in investment.

There is a clear consensus that a windfall tax is the right thing to do. An overwhelming majority of people support it—including, I might point out to Government Members, three quarters of Conservative voters. I do not know what Conservative Members are waiting for: they should support a windfall tax because some of the people who vote for them—or used to vote for them, anyway—also support it. Leading charities have endorsed it and some Conservative Members, including the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and the former business Minister the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), have supported it too.

Of course the oil and gas companies do not want the windfall tax to happen. Let us take their arguments head on. As I have said, the argument that the tax will lead to a collapse in investment is not credible given what the companies are doing with this windfall, and it also misunderstands the long-term basis of these companies’ investment plans. I should also point out that the companies would keep a significant proportion of the windfall, even under our proposals. It is an unexpected, unearned windfall, half of which they would keep.

Secondly, as I said to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), the proposal comes against a backdrop of the incredibly generous tax position in the UK, which meant that BP and Shell actually paid no net tax at all between 2018 and 2020.

Thirdly, there is a wider context. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is muttering, from a sedentary position, that those companies are not making profits. Actually, they are forecast to make near-record profits this year, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at what outside analysts are saying.

As I was saying, there is a wider context. The oil and gas sector provides important employment for our country and communities. We need a phased transition, but, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, the long-term answer to this crisis is not more reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, the Business Secretary himself has said:

“the UK is still too reliant on fossil fuels.”—[Official Report, 20 September 2021; Vol. 701, c. 95.]

The answer must be instead to go further and faster on renewables, nuclear and other zero-carbon alternatives, but that is not what the fossil fuel companies are doing with their profits.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He has identified the immediate issue of energy poverty and crisis that we have in this country. Those of us who are old enough to have lived through the 1970s and 1980s recall how the Norwegians used the wealth generated from the North sea to create sovereign wealth funds. Should we not be thinking about that? Could we perhaps not just use the windfall tax, but deploy such funds in the way that my hon. Friend is describing, to invest in renewables and invest in our country?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point.

Labour has come up with a clear and costed plan. We plan, by levying the windfall tax, to reduce VAT to zero, to increase the warm homes discount from £150 to £400, and to extend it from the 2.2 million families who currently receive it to 9 million. On top of that, we have set aside £600 million to help our businesses out. This is in stark contrast with what is being proposed by the Conservatives—the Government of the day, who, six days before the announcement of the rise in the price cap, seem to have nothing to say. What is their explanation for why they are not acting? It is very hard to find the explanation, although perhaps we will hear one today. The one person who has ventured to provide one is the Education Secretary, who has said:

“A windfall tax on oil and gas companies that are already struggling in the North Sea is never going to cut it.”

Even the oil and gas companies do not describe themselves as struggling. They say that this is a cash machine. I have to ask what planet the Government are living on. Does it not say everything about them that it is the struggles of companies making billions from an expected windfall that stir them, not the struggles of the British people? How dare they leave families in the lurch because of their refusal to stand up to vested interests in the oil and gas sector?

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

In 1998, when Labour was in power, oil prices bottomed out at $12 a barrel. By 2008, the price had risen to nearly $100 a barrel. What did Labour do with that money? It is regrettable that it did not create an oil sovereign fund, as Norway did.

[Edward Miliband]

I am very proud of the investments that the last Labour Government made in our public services.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

No, I am going to make progress.

The truth is—we cannot get away from it—that the Conservatives are a party bankrolled to the tune of nearly £5 million by oil and gas interests since 2016. Bankrolled by oil and gas executives, they cannot act on behalf of the British people.

Let me end by saying this. The British people are fed up with what they have seen from the Government in recent months. They want a Government who are on their side. They want a Government who will act for them. That is why we need a windfall tax. It is a test of whose side they are on, and whose side we are all on in this House—on the side of gas and oil companies making billions of profits, or on the side of millions of struggling families. We know whose side we are on. If this Government were truly on the side of the British people, they would act, and that is why I urge Members on both sides of the House to vote for our motion tonight.

Storm Arwen: Power Outages

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I commend my hon. Friend, with whom I spoke on Tuesday and Wednesday. It was a pleasure to visit his constituency. At Ireshopeburn, I saw the generator being connected to the community centre by engineers from across the UK, including from UK Power Networks in south-east England. I saw the relief centre at St John’s Chapel and I was in Eastgate, so I saw things first hand in his constituency.

To answer my hon. Friend’s question about our assessment of the comms, I have already mentioned that the comms from Northern Powergrid were not good enough in those first days. I am sure that that will be part of the review process that the Government will do with Ofgem as part of the response to all these storm events. On Northern Powergrid, we put the experience of many Members of the House and their constituents in those first few days firmly to Mr Jones, and I think that that message landed.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the engineers, the Army, the emergency services and, most of all, local people in affected areas for their heroic response to the crisis. It is totally contemptuous for the Business Secretary to be available for a photo opportunity yesterday but not to be available today to come to the House to account for the Government’s performance. That simply adds insult to injury for communities in the north of England that have been badly let down by the power networks and by central Government in their crisis response and oversight of the system.

I will ask the Minister some questions. Some 10 days into the crisis, why has the Government’s emergency committee Cobra still not met to co-ordinate the response? Over the weekend, a local Conservative councillor in Durham said:

“if this happened in London…or in the south-east, everything would have got thrown at it.”

Are people in the north not entitled to think that he is right and that they have been treated as second-class citizens? Why did it take a week for the Army to be called in when Members on both sides of the House were calling for that at the start of last week? Why are thousands still without power when the Secretary of State told us last Wednesday in the House that people would be reconnected by Friday? Will the Minister now apologise to communities in the north for the Government’s performance?

The Minister said today, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, that he wants to learn lessons, but we have been here before. After the 2013 storms, multiple reports were produced—I have them here for him—that identified problems of communication, the vulnerability of the network and the complacency of the companies. After that event, during which 16,000 people were cut off for 48 hours, customers were told that they could expect to see “significant improvement”. This time, however, the performance has been far worse. Is not the only conclusion that the Government have been asleep at the wheel not just in the last 10 days but for the best part of a decade?

The climate crisis means that we will face many more such events. The Government must get a grip. Instead of a cosy Government-led process, overseen by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem, will the Minister now establish what the situation demands—a proper independent inquiry into the performance and failures of power companies, regulators and the Government to ensure that our country and communities are never left that vulnerable again?

[Greg Hands]

Let me deal with each point in turn. It would not be fair to say that yesterday was a photo opportunity. The Secretary of State visited the armed forces, engineers, local residents, the relief centres and so on. It was most definitely not a photo opportunity, but an opportunity, as I discovered in County Durham on Wednesday and in Aberdeenshire on Friday, to thank those who had responded. Engineers had come from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man to assist and we felt that it was right to go and thank them for their efforts. The Secretary of State is on a call at the moment with the Prime Minister and the head of Northern Powergrid.

On the response, the point here is that the mutual aid system is in place between the distribution network operators. The right hon. Member will know from his time as Secretary of State the importance of the mutual aid system—the NEWSAC, or North East South West Area Consortium, system—whereby different companies across the United Kingdom provide help to each other when a storm comes in. That is why engineers can be deployed right the way across the country. That is the most effective thing, because restoring power involves quite dangerous, health and safety-intensive work to restore overhead power cables, and those are the people one needs to be able to do the job.

The right hon. Member says it took a week to bring in the Army, but it is for the local resilience forum to say what the needs are locally. As soon as the local resilience forum in Aberdeenshire and that in Durham gave us the call, the Army was deployed very quickly indeed. He talks about investment, and I mentioned earlier that £60 billion has been invested in the network over the last eight years.

I learned at first hand on Wednesday in County Durham and on Friday in Aberdeenshire about the particular nature of this storm. There was the unusual wind speed and the fact that, rather than the prevailing south-westerly winds, the wind came in from the north-east, which makes a big difference for the power network. There was also the nature of the icing and the accumulation of icing on cables, which was a particular part of the storm. One of the engineers I spoke to in Durham on Wednesday described how he had experienced this particular set of circumstances only once before in his 35-year career in the industry.

Finally, on climate crisis, the right hon. Member is right: of course, there will be similar events like this and more of these events in the future. That is why we need to do everything we can—for example, with our net zero strategy in October—to make sure this country becomes more resilient to these kinds of events. We are currently doing the joint consultation with Ofgem on the future system operator, and that is exactly the kind of response that we need: a net zero strategy for how we equip the country overall, plus in particular how we make sure that the grid becomes more resilient to these kinds of events in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I do not think that a public inquiry is the right course. It would inevitably take a long time. It would be better to use the established and effective review mechanism that we already have in place, and I invite the hon. Member and all right hon. and hon. Members to participate in it and give their views. I would say that NEWSAC, the mutual aid scheme, was deployed as soon it practicably could be, actually in advance of the storm coming in. I think that that has worked well. On the role of the Army, it is principally a matter for the local resilience forums to make assessments of the resources they need and then to put in that call. From my experience in Aberdeenshire on Friday, I can tell the House that, when the local resilience forum put in that call, the response was close to immediate.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give me some guidance on the absence of the Secretary of State from this urgent question? Yesterday, he claimed to be getting a grip on this crisis, but today he has run away from answering questions in this House. The truth is that there are very serious issues here, and the Minister has had to come up with a hastily arranged “dog ate my homework” excuse in which he claims that the Secretary of State is on the phone to Northern Powergrid at the moment. He could have been on the phone before this urgent question or after it. This is an insult to the people in the north of England and an insult to this House.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to choose who comes to the Dispatch Box. It is up to the Government to decide who they provide, and the Minister was very thorough in his long answers to questions. You have also been in government, and you were the ones who chose who stood at the Dispatch Box. I do not think the points you raise will have gone amiss. You did say that the Secretary of State was meant to be on a phone call, and it was with the Prime Minister as well. I am sure people will check to see if that is the case, as I am sure it is. If the Minister says it is the case, it must be the case.

Storm Arwen

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Let me first join him in sending my condolences to the victims who have tragically died during Storm Arwen and to their families. I express my sympathy to all those who have lost power and are suffering during this crisis. I know from my own constituency, where we had terrible flooding in 2019, the impacts of extreme weather and the traumatic effects it has on people and communities. I also join him in paying tribute to the many engineers, volunteers and emergency service workers who have worked tirelessly to step up and help during this crisis.

We have heard heartbreaking stories of outages leaving residents without power, water and light. There are also many reports that the Secretary of State will have heard of residents being unable to get proper information about what is happening and waiting for hours to get through on phone lines. On behalf of the many who have suffered, I want to ask him a few questions. Does he believe that there is enough support for the most vulnerable on the ground while the power outages continue, including the use of emergency generators, and has he given thought to calling in the Army if necessary to help with that process? He said that power would be restored “in the next day or two” for the overwhelming majority. Can he say how many people he estimates will be left without power and how long it will take to restore power for them?

After terrible storms in 2013—the stormiest winter in 40 years that saw hundreds of thousands lose their power—it was said that lessons would be learned, and I want to probe the Secretary of State a little further on three areas in that regard. First, on communications and information, the Science and Technology Committee recommended that the single national emergency number was put in place. The purpose of that number was that people would not just know who to call but could get information promptly. On the calling of 105, which he mentioned, there are multiple reports of it causing enormous frustration to people who are not getting the information. What is his assessment of whether people have been able to get the information, and if not, why not?

Secondly—the Secretary of State drew attention to this—Ofgem recommended in the wake of those storms that district network operators should share resources and personnel in the event of such a crisis. He said that that has happened, but is he satisfied that it has happened right across the DNO network, and at the scale that is required? Can he give us some further information on that?

Thirdly, after 2015 there was a clear sense of the vulnerabilities of the overhead power network, and agreement that the networks would survey the vulnerabilities that they faced and act. Is the Secretary of State satisfied, at this stage, that that has happened, because the continued vulnerability of power lines seems all too apparent?

Faced with the climate crisis, extreme weather events will sadly become all the more common in future. We cannot be this vulnerable in future. There is real concern that some lessons have not been learned, and on this occasion we must face up to those lessons and learn them.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

On the situation with regard to the climate change emergency, the right hon. Gentleman and I have very similar views. Clearly Storm Arwen was an event the likes of which we have not seen for, certainly, 16 years, since the records of the DNOs started. We have to be prepared for similarly extreme difficult weather conditions in future and make sure that our system is resilient in that eventuality.

Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, the 105 line is the one number that people are being asked to call; it has been centralised. He is right to say that there was initial pressure. My understanding is that over the weekend, it took people up to two hours to get through, which is clearly unacceptable, but the storm hit and the companies did not have the communication networks, the call centres or the people there to deal with the situation. When I spoke to the CEOs of the companies yesterday, they said that the waiting time has been reduced to 10 minutes to a quarter of an hour. That is what I was told. If people are finding difficulties, they should definitely get in touch with their MPs, Government and also the distributors.



On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, the North East South West Area Consortium is a very effective means by which the generating companies can share and deploy engineers across different networks. That is very effective, I am told by the CEOs of the companies, but I will have more calls today with local resilience leaders to ensure that what the generating companies are saying is matched by what people are experiencing on the ground, because, as he well knows, there can be a mismatch between the two.

Bulb Energy: Administration

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on Bulb Energy entering administration.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

As many people in the House will know, when energy suppliers leave the market, the regulator, Ofgem, runs a competitive supplier-of-last-resort process. Last week, Bulb informed the Government and Ofgem that it would be leaving the market. Ofgem has advised that the supplier-of-last-resort process is not viable for Bulb because of the size of its customer book. Ofgem has, with my consent, applied to the court to appoint energy administrators. If appointed by the court, the administrators will continue to operate Bulb under what is called the special administration regime, which is set out clearly in legislation.

We will update the House once the court has made its determination, but I wish to clarify a couple of points. First, a special administration regime is a temporary arrangement that provides an ultimate safety net to protect consumers and ensure continued supply. The special administration regime will keep bills at the lowest cost that it is reasonably practical to incur while ensuring that the market remains stable. The House should understand that we do not want the company to be in this temporary state for longer than is absolutely necessary. Supplies remain secure and credit balances will be protected. Finally, all domestic customers in Great Britain are, of course, protected by the energy price cap, which remains firmly in place.

[Edward Miliband]

It is right that the Secretary of State has been forced to come to the House: 18 companies have gone bust since he last came to the House in respect of this issue, in September, and reassured us that there was nothing to worry about.

I have a series of questions. First, what is the Secretary of State’s estimate of the scale of costs the taxpayer faces as a result of the Bulb bail-out? That was not clear from his statement, but this is a taxpayer bail-out and the public deserve to know. Will he level with people about the costs that bill payers are going to have to pick up from all the other companies that have failed since September? How much will bills increase as a result?

Secondly, we are now in a position in which companies have banked profits but losses stretching to hundreds of millions incurred by those same companies are being borne by taxpayers and bill payers. So many companies going bust in just two months—something not happening anywhere else in the world—points to a systemic failure of regulation. Firms took risky bets and were allowed to do so, and the Government and Ofgem significantly deregulated the conditions of operation in 2016. Will the Secretary of State now take responsibility for this clear failure of regulation? Does this not suggest that there needs to be a proper review of the regulation of the market?

Thirdly, there is a global dimension to gas price rises but the truth is that we are more exposed as a country because of failures on onshore wind, solar, energy efficiency and gas storage, which is just 2% of our annual demand compared with 25% in other countries. Will the Secretary of State admit that Government inaction over the past decade has left us more vulnerable?

Finally, on the cost-of-living crisis, with further energy price rises coming, why are the Government making the situation worse with cuts to universal credit, by raising national insurance and by refusing to bring some relief by cutting VAT on energy bills? With businesses being hit, too, where is the support that he indicated was coming more than a month ago for energy-intensive industries?

We have seen a failure of policy over a decade, a failure of regulation and the Government making the cost-of-living crisis worse. Is not the truth that this Government cannot be the answer to this energy crisis because it is their crisis? It is businesses and families who are paying the price.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

On a point of fact, the number is actually 22 companies, not 18, and I refer back to that—[Interruption.] No, that is the figure. That shows the incredible resilience of the systems that we have in place. We have the supplier of last resort, which has worked very effectively, and, as I outlined in my statement, we also have the special administration regime, which was designed precisely to deal with situations such as the one we are now in.

On regulation, Ofgem has launched a review of the retail market and how it operates. I will be directly involved in that and will study it very closely.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the global market and the situation we are in post covid; he and his party predicted record levels of unemployment and recession, and of course they were completely wrong—they were absolutely wrong. We are growing the economy stronger than any other country in the G7. We are also creating jobs and creating investment, so the right hon. Gentleman’s prophecies of doom were completely misplaced, and he is completely without any firm arguments over our response to what was a global pandemic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the excellent work he has done in a short time, representing his constituency. He knows that across Government we have regular conversations about how to help energy-intensive industries, and I would be happy to meet him and his constituents to discuss what we are doing.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in commending the COP26 President on the progress made at COP26, but we know much greater action is required, and it is the Secretary of State’s job to ensure that every part of our Government acts. There is an immediate test with the UK-Australia trade deal: yesterday, the Australian Government reaffirmed their 2030 target, which is consistent only with 4° of warming, and there are reports that our Government have allowed the watering down of temperature targets in that deal. Surely, if we are serious after Glasgow about not letting big emitters off the hook, the deal must be rewritten to enshrine in it a proper plan for Australia as well as the UK, including for 2030, to keep 1.5° alive.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have a duty to ensure that we put net zero at the centre in treaties and in our international obligations. Where I dispute with him is that the Australian deal does mention Paris climate ambitions and does commit to decarbonisation. Lastly, for the first time ever, the Australian Government have committed to net zero. That is a huge achievement, which I wish he would support and endorse.

[Edward Miliband]

The Secretary of State should not be defending the Australian Government’s 2030 target. It is he who said about the negotiations:

“There may have been an issue about specifically putting the 1.5° on the face of the negotiating mandate.”

It is time for the Government not only to talk tough, but to act tough, because we must put pressure on countries such as Australia. There is a clear pattern of behaviour here on climate. Too often, this Government face both ways: the Cumbria coal mine, the Cambo oil field, cutting overseas aid for the most vulnerable countries, cutting air passenger duty for domestic flights and failing to invest in green recovery at home. He is the man supposed to be in charge of ensuring the Government speak with one voice. Why does he think he is failing to do so? Is that the reason why people are calling for the COP26 President to take back control of energy and climate change?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The COP26 President did a marvellous job, and the person speaking with two voices is the right hon. Gentleman. On the one hand, he says COP was a great success, and then on the other hand, he is saying the Government have failed. It is inconsistent and it is implausible.

Income Tax (Charge)

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I will begin, if I may, by congratulating the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as it is the first time that we have faced each other across the Dispatch Box since the birth of his new baby. Many congratulations to him. If he needs some representation to make sure that he gets his paternity leave, I am available to help.

I will begin this debate on a point of consensus. We have a Government who have been in power for 11 years. They have been 11 years of low growth, stagnant wages and falling living standards. I am old enough to remember when this characterisation of our economy was seen as controversial, but at his party conference, the Prime Minister said:

“We have had…10 years of flatlining wages”.

The question at the heart of this debate is whether the Government truly recognise the error of their ways. Does the Budget help to tackle the deep inequalities we face, including the immediate cost of living crisis? Does it support our businesses so that they can deliver the good jobs and decent wages that we need? And does it create the long-term partnership between the public and private sectors to create the jobs of the future, in particular in zero carbon? I am afraid that the answer on all three counts is no.

Let me start with the immediate cost of living crisis facing so many families. Less than 24 hours since the Budget was delivered, it is unravelling because of the chasm between the claims of Ministers and the reality faced by working people. Listening to the Chancellor yesterday, it was clear that he is living on a totally different planet. He told us that he would deliver an age of optimism, but when we take off the Instagram filter, all he offers is an age of stagnation: low wages, low growth, high taxes—more lost Tory years. These are the facts that the Chancellor did not tell us yesterday, but they have emerged this morning.

This morning, the Resolution Foundation said:

“Real wages are set to fall again next year”.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that, over the next year, a median earner will find their take-home pay falling by £180 a year in real terms. Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, says that the outlook for living standards is

“awful… High inflation, rising taxes, poor growth keeping living standards virtually stagnant for another half a decade.”

In fact, the IFS estimates that, on the numbers published yesterday, real wages in 2026 will still be lower than they were in 2008. For all the boasts of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and others, all that the British people are facing under their Government is squeezed wages and living standards, as far as the eye can see.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, on top of the trend of low wages, it is doubly hurtful that working families will be faced with increasing electricity and gas bills, with no relief on that, rising food prices, and potentially a difficult Christmas, with possible supply shortages and a lack of supply of Christmas presents?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend is completely right and I will come to that point in a moment. The Government will no doubt have all kinds of excuses, but this is a sin of commission, not just omission, in the sense that the Government are actually doing things to make the problem worse.

The problem is that the Chancellor could not bring himself to admit any of this yesterday. Here is the issue: it is not just that he did not say any of this, but it is like the Government actually believe their own rhetoric, and the Budget is the result. Yesterday we saw raid upon raid on the living standards of working people: council tax hikes, hidden in the Budget document—not announced by the Chancellor; a stealth raid on the self-employed worth £1.7 billion over the coming five years—not announced by the Chancellor; and of course the national insurance hike on ordinary families confirmed.

Maybe I am a bit old fashioned in this respect, but let us remember that this is a direct breach of the promise that every Conservative Member made to their constituents at the general election. What did they call it in their manifesto? Alongside a picture of the Prime Minister—drawing on his long and unblemished record of truth telling and candour—it said:

“My Guarantee… We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.”

I look forward to them all explaining at the next general election why they have broken that promise. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is nodding. Perhaps he would like to explain why they have broken their promise.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I have been goaded into intervening by the right hon. Gentleman, who asks a very direct question. I think the honesty will be that we will say that we wanted to protect the public finances, and that post covid, given the choice of either borrowing more money or asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the burden to cover those costs, we decided that we should do the latter.

[Edward Miliband]

It is certainly not those with the broadest shoulders who are being affected, and I thought the reason that the Government raised taxes was for social care. It is yet another guarantee from the Prime Minister that is not worth the paper that it is written on.

The IFS tells us this morning that taxes will be £3,000 more per household than when the Prime Minister came to power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said in her excellent speech yesterday, this is about the choices that the Government are making. Also buried in the Red Book is that the Chancellor saw fit to cut taxes on the banks by more than £1 billion because he was so worried about the burden they were facing, just like last year when he made the choice to cut stamp duty for second home owners because he was so worried about them. He was obviously less concerned about the burden of higher energy prices facing millions of British people, because he refused to cut VAT on fuel as he should have done.

In a way, the most shameful part of the Budget is the Chancellor’s refusal to reverse his £1,000 cut to universal credit, which hit 6 million families. For all the smoke and mirrors, this morning we know the truth about universal credit. According to the Resolution Foundation, three quarters of families on universal credit will be worse off, even after the changes to the taper. It says that the taper changes

“will be overshadowed by last month’s £6 billion cut to entitlement: three-quarters of families on UC will lose more from the £20 cut than they gain from the Budget changes. Even if we also take into account the…National Living Wage, the poorest fifth of households will still be an average of £280 a year worse off overall.”

The fact that Conservative Members were wildly cheering a policy yesterday that sees millions of working families far worse off shows, I am afraid, that they do not get it either.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

When I wander down Stockton High Street, I see the signs of poverty everywhere. I see young people with no hope on their faces and no hope of getting a job. I see people who probably have to shop in the charity shops because it is pretty obvious that they have not been able to buy any new clothes for a while. I see families going discount store to discount store to buy one item because it happens to be a couple of pence cheaper than it is elsewhere. Did my right hon. Friend see anything in the Budget to correct that?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. That is why the boosterism of the Chancellor saying that it is an age of optimism will ring so hollow for so many people in our country.

You cannot build a new economy when you are hitting working families with a triple whammy of higher national insurance, higher prices and cuts to universal credit. That is more of the same. It is the Conservative economic model—year upon year upon year of stagnation for the British people.

Let me next come to the question of support for business in the Budget—the direct responsibility of the Business Secretary. Our businesses have been heroic during the covid crisis, closing their doors when asked and stepping up when they needed to. But while the economy may have reopened, the crisis is not over for so many of them. They face debts incurred during covid. They face the costs of the supply chain crisis. The Office for Budget Responsibility is very interesting on that, because of course there is a global dimension to it but there is definitely a British dimension too. They face the failure to plan for the changes arising as a result of Brexit—the OBR is very informative on this—and they face the energy price crisis.

Against this backdrop, I say gently to the Business Secretary that, as he will know, many of our businesses feel that the Government are engaged in finger pointing rather than finding solutions, with haulage firms told it is all their fault, when they warned the Government for months about the impending HGV crisis; those in the manufacturing industry—briefed against, not, to be fair, by him but by the Treasury—told that they are running their businesses badly because energy costs are soaring; and exporters tearing their hair out about the red tape of the trade agreement with the EU but told they just need to get their act together. What businesses want most of all, as he will know, is not to have a war with the Government but for their voice to be heard.

To be fair to the Business Secretary, a few weeks ago he did try to act to hear the voice of those facing the most acute short-term challenge—energy-intensive industries facing the energy price crisis. He knows that this is no ordinary situation. Our industries are facing not just the normal differential of price with our competitors but differentials far, far higher. I have met the Steel Council; he has met the Steel Council. He knows how tough it is. We know that he knows how tough it is because, to be fair, he told us two weeks ago how bad things were and said that he was talking to the Treasury. The Treasury was not very polite in return. He is chuckling from a sedentary position; I am on his side on this one. The next day, having obviously decided that he did not like being briefed against, he announced—I had my dealings with the Treasury when I was in government but I do not remember ever quite doing this—that he had made a formal request to the Treasury for support for energy-intensive industries. He was taking a stand.

That was on Monday 12 October, more than two weeks ago. On that day, a source told the BBC, rather encouragingly, that

“everyone in government understands the importance of this situation. We need to solve this quickly.”

It might have been the Prime Minister, who was on holiday at the time, or somebody else. That created a real expectation that this Budget would take action on this pressing issue that the Business Secretary has been publicly championing. So where is the help for our glass industry, our steel industry, our chemicals industry and our ceramics industry? These are some of the most important jobs in our country, valued in communities across all regions and nations of the UK. Does this not speak volumes about the Treasury’s—and, I am afraid, the Government’s—wanton disregard for some of the most foundational industries in our country?

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is also important that the House remembers that 3 million people have still been completely excluded and forgotten by this Government since March last year. There was nothing for them in yesterday’s Budget. They have been neglected yet again.

[Edward Miliband]

That is a very important point. The championing of ExcludedUK is a very important issue, and my hon. Friend is right to point it out.

This is about choices. Amazon gets help from the super-deduction, but our energy intensives are left out in the cold. I hope that in his reply, the Business Secretary will tell us where things stand for the energy-intensive industries, because they have been in touch with me saying, “What is going on? What is happening?” There is just complete silence from the Chancellor.

Let me talk about our high street businesses, because they face higher national insurance and business rates. I welcome some of the short-term measures in yesterday’s Budget, but it is not unfair to say that fundamental reform has been ducked yet again. The CBI said this in its Budget response yesterday:

“But the hard truth is that wholesale reform to unlock investment was rejected today. The Government missed the opportunity to truly reform a business rates system that diminishes Britain’s high streets and factories.”

I was quite mystified yesterday, because the Chancellor attacked the idea of fundamental reform of business rates, a system with a genuinely level playing field between traditional high streets and internet businesses. Four successive Tory manifestos have promised precisely that reform: 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019.

When the Business Secretary was a humble Back Bencher—I think he was writing “Britannia Unchained” at this point—he was pamphleteering. I am not against pamphleteering; I have done some of it myself. He was a Back Bencher with his ideas, and he said we need

“a system that is fair for both traditional and internet companies.”

He is now the Business Secretary. Why does he not deliver it? He knows, because he talks to the business community a lot, that this is a massive issue for our high street businesses. They rightly say, “Look at the burden on us and look at the burden on tech businesses. Look at the unfairness.” That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West is so right to champion this issue.

The longer-term issue we face is how to create the growing economy that we need. Not for the first time, the Government talk a good game. We have the branding of the Budget. We know that the Chancellor is incredibly keen on branding, and his own personal branding more than anything. The Government are a bit of a sideline. It is more Rishi branding than Government branding, I think it is fair to say. There are some knowing looks from Members on the Government Benches. The Rishi branding of the Budget is the “plan for growth”. I have to say that a plan for growth that has growth of 1.3% at the end of the Parliament is not much of a plan. Growth will be just 1.7% when the economy returns to trend. That is woeful by historical standards. It is the biggest challenge we face as a country. This is an important point, because when people wonder how the Government manage to combine the highest taxes for 60 years and public services that are creaking, the terrible growth performance of our economy is a significant part of the answer.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Did the right hon. Gentleman, like me, also miss any announcement that points to the transformation to the green economy and green jobs?

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Lady is completely right about that. She anticipates my next point brilliantly; it is a useful segue. If we want to understand why growth is so anaemic, she is right that we need look no further than the Chancellor’s failure to seize the opportunities for green growth. This is an important point: the prudent and responsible economic call—I suspect the Business Secretary agrees—for economic growth is to invest at scale in the transition to a zero-carbon economy. Let us be honest, it is now a completely open secret that the problem is that the Chancellor is not a believer, and it showed yesterday. As we prepare to host the most important international summit ever on climate change, as delegates gather from all around the world, and as the eyes are on Britain, what did he unveil as his flagship measure yesterday? To cut air passenger duty for domestic flights. You literally could not make it up. People want good and affordable rail services, but the plan for rail seems to have been postponed again, and instead there will be 400,000 more domestic flights as a result of that decision. Once again, that shows that the Treasury is not signed up to the agenda.

I am such a nerd that I was reading the OBR report last night and there is an interesting and illuminating bit on, I think, page 176—Members can check—which says, in OBR language:

“the…costs involved in getting the rest of the way”—

to net zero—

“remain significant and their apportionment between businesses, households, and government…remains largely unclear. This leaves the costs associated with the transition to net zero as a major source of longer-term fiscal risk.”

Let me underline that point for the House. The July 2021 OBR report, which for the nerds among us is brilliant, and which I strongly recommend to Members as bedtime reading—Madam Deputy Speaker is laughing at me, or perhaps with me—warned of the danger of not acting on the climate and of debt climbing to eye-watering levels as a result. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West said yesterday that debt would rise to 300%, I noticed a Conservative Member at the back look at his hon. Friend and say, “Oh that can’t be right,” but that is what it says. The interesting thing about that report is that it warns not just about the danger of not acting, but about the danger of delay. It says that delaying action on the climate by a decade will double the cost of the transition as we lock in high-carbon choices.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that the Budget had so little for the potentially huge industry for the UK of offshore floating wind energy? He talks about delay. If we delay, we will lose out to other countries in that race, and they will not show any mercy on that front.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have been successful in offshore wind generation, and it is right to acknowledge that. The ground was laid by the last Labour Government, but I will leave that to one side. We have been successful at generating the wind energy, but not the jobs. He is completely right that we have not delivered for many people when it comes to jobs.

As I was saying, not acting increases the cost, so the prudent responsible choice is to invest. I will mention some key sectors, because again, there has been a deafening silence. I come back to the steel industry, which is such a litmus test. It needs about £6 billion of investment to get to net zero by 2035. The view is shared on both sides of the House that it needs to get to net zero and that it is a foundational industry that we need and that is incredibly important to communities across the country. There are 20 demonstration projects around Europe but none here at the moment. It requires a partnership of the public and private sectors and needs both sides to invest. There is a crucial role for the Government in that.

We have set out a commitment of up to £3 billion over a decade to create that partnership with the steel industry so it can make the transition and we can keep those good jobs with good wages that are vital to many communities. It is a test of us as a House of Commons.

The Government talk about a £250 million clean steel fund, but even that has still not been delivered. I hope that it is still Government policy, but it seems to be in the balance and might have been got rid of. That is not good enough. The Treasury has to understand that unless we invest in steel, automotive and hydrogen, we will fall behind in the global race, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

You are clearly talking about the tension between the costs of going too late or too soon in terms of efficiencies. Do you agree that you might have more credibility—

[Dr Mullan]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he would have more credibility on the issue if he had not backed Labour’s 2030 net zero target, which even his own unions did not support? He has no credibility on that point.

[Edward Miliband]

That is definitely the Whips Office’s talking point. The reality is—[Interruption.] I will tell them: our last manifesto said that

“the substantial majority of our emissions reductions”

should happen by 2030, and that is absolutely right. We should be going faster and we should not be delaying. The interesting point is that delay is wrong not just for the climate, but economically. That is the brilliant platform on which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West, the green shadow Chancellor, is standing. We will fall behind if we do not act, and I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, the Business Secretary knows it.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about credibility, I have sat on two north-east Labour councils, Darlington Borough Council and Durham County Council. When the Conservatives were in charge in Darlington, Labour wanted the target to be 2030. When Labour was in charge in Durham, it wanted the target to be 2050. Is there consistency in Labour party policy or not?

[Edward Miliband]

It is completely consistent, yes.

Let me turn from industry to retrofit and insulation. Of all the things that were missing from the Budget and that I thought the Treasury would have been persuaded about, the one that is as close as we can get to a fiscal, economic, climate no-brainer is a proper 10-year retrofit and insulation plan. If we invest, we cut bills and carbon emissions, make ourselves less exposed to the international gas market, and create tens of thousands of jobs. I do not get why it has not happened. All we get are piecemeal schemes and no proper plan. I will not even go into the fiasco of the green homes grant—emissions from buildings are higher than they were in 2015.

[Alex Cunningham]

My right hon. Friend will recollect our discussions about the tremendous success of the warm zones project at the turn of the century. We went door to door, day in, day out, to install thousands of measures that saved consumers a tremendous amount as well as reducing emissions. Does he agree that we need that systematic approach if we are going to crack the problem?

[Edward Miliband]

I completely agree. I actually take a crumb of comfort from the Business Secretary, when he defends the sorry saga of the green homes grant, pointing to some of the money given to local authorities and what they did. That is what we need at scale—locally led, house by house, street by street. We are miles behind other countries.

On green investment, a philosophical difference is emerging. I worry that the Government will increasingly leave individuals and industries on their own to face the costs. I do not think that is true of the whole of Government, but the Treasury remains a fundamental block to the green investment that we need. There was a whole saga about its net zero review and the fact that it emphasises short-term costs rather than long-term gains. Frankly, that is a big problem for our country.

[Jamie Stone]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I will make some progress and finish.

Labour would deliver a climate investment pledge of £28 billion extra every year for the rest of the decade. That is an investment in bringing down energy bills; delivering affordable public transport and cleaner air; and backing British industries with a real plan for jobs and wages. That is what real action on the climate emergency and industrial strategy looks like.

Given the cost of living crisis, the immediate issues facing business, and the need for longer-term investment, this is not the Budget we require. It does not make choices to help working people; it hits working people. It cuts taxes for the banks but raises taxes for workers. It deserts key British industries and it fails to invest, as we need to, in the green transition. If the big challenge of the future is how we build an economic model that rights the wrongs of the past, this Government cannot be the answer and nor was this Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is a very direct question and, as I have said, conversations are ongoing. I speak to the CEO of Ofgem on a daily basis and we are always looking at the situation in terms of gas and electricity prices and how we can mitigate those risks.

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman was asked a very direct question, as he said, by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged two weeks ago the very difficult situation of the energy-intensive industries and said that he had submitted a formal request to the Treasury. What has happened?

[Hon. Members]

They are ignoring it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We are not going to nationalise anything; that is very true.

[Edward Miliband]

It is hard to follow that response from the Secretary of State; he said, “a general context in which…something, something.” Can he just answer the question: when are we going to know what help is available for energy-intensive industries, if any, and what kind of help is it going to be?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is watch this space and let’s see what happens.

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and send my warmest congratulations—as I have already done directly—to the Secretary of State on the birth of his new baby.

Let me start by saying that it is good that tackling the climate crisis is a shared national objective across the House, and that we want the Government to succeed at COP26 in just ten days’ time. However, there are two central questions about the strategy that has been published today: does it finally close the yawning gap between Government promises and delivery, and will it make the public investment which is essential to ensure that the green transition is fair and creates jobs? I am afraid that the answer to both questions, despite what the Minister said, is no. The plan falls short on delivery, and while there is modest short-term investment, there is nothing like the commitment that we believe is required—and we know why. When asked at the weekend about the Treasury’s approach to these issues, a source from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said:

“They are not climate change deniers but they are emphasising the short-term risks, rather than long-term needs”.

The Chancellor’s fingerprints are all over these documents, and not in a good way.

We have waited months for the heat and buildings strategy, but it is a massive let-down. We are in the midst of an energy price crisis caused by a decade of inaction. Emissions from buildings are higher than they were in 2015. The biggest single programme that could make a difference is a 10-year house-by-house, street-by-street retrofit plan to cut bills and emissions and ensure energy security. There are 19 million homes below EPC band C, but according to the best estimates of today’s proposals, they will help just a tiny fraction of that number. Indeed, there is not even a replacement for the ill-fated green homes grant for homeowners. Can the Minister explain where the long-term retrofit plan is? Did BEIS argue for it and get turned down by the Treasury, or did he not make the case?

According to the Government’s own target, we need 600,000 homes a year to be installing heat pumps by 2028, but the Government are funding just 30,000 a year, helping just one in 250 households on the gas grid. Why does the Minister’s plan on heat pumps fall so far short of what is required? As for transport, we agree with the transition to electric cars—and I support and welcome the zero emissions mandate—but we need to make it fair to consumers. We should at the very least have had long-term zero-interest loans to cut the costs of purchasing electric cars. What is the plan to make them accessible to all, and not just the richest? Will the Minister tell us that in his reply? On nuclear, I was surprised, given the advance publicity, that the word did not even cross the Minister’s lips. We have seen a decade of inaction and delay on this issue, so can he tell us why there is still no decision on new nuclear?

The failure to invest affects not just whether this transition is fair for consumers but workers in existing industries. Take steel: it will cost £6 billion for the steel industry to get to net zero over the next 15 years. If we want a steel industry—as we do across the House—we will need to share the costs with the private sector. However, there is nothing for steel in this document, and a £250 million clean steel fund some way down the road will not cut it. Can he give us his estimates of the needs of the steel industry and how he thinks they can be met?

The same is true of investing in new industries such as hydrogen. There is a global race in these areas and I am afraid that the UK is not powering ahead but falling behind. Germany is offering €9 billion for a new hydrogen strategy; the UK is offering £240 million, and we are putting off decisions until later in the decade. We see the same pattern across the board, including on land use, industry and transport, and because of this failure to invest, there remains a chasm between promises and delivery.

Finally, it was noticeable that the Minister did not say that the plan would meet the target for the 2035 sixth carbon budget, but surely that is a basic prerequisite of the strategy to 2050. At less than halfway to net zero, do the policies in this document meet the target, or fall short of it? Despite hundreds of pages of plans, strategies and hot air, there is still a chasm between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality? My fear is that the plan will not deliver the fair, prosperous transition that we need and that is equal to the scale of the emergency we face.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm words of congratulation to the Secretary of State and for his intention to join us in showing real leadership. I agree with him that this should not be a particularly partisan matter. The UK as a whole country expects to see our politicians working together, particularly in the run-up to our hosting the vital COP26. I will deal with his various points in turn.

On power, it is worth pointing out the success that we have had on renewables. The right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change up to 2010. When he left office, renewables were only about 10% of our power mix; now the figure is around 43%. Offshore wind costs have come down by two thirds. He mentioned nuclear, but I am just about old enough to remember the 1997 new Labour manifesto, which stated that there would be no new nuclear projects. It took Labour 10 years to do anything at all on nuclear.

The right hon. Gentleman called our investment in heat and buildings a modest one, but it is £4 billion. The difference between us is that we want to go with the natural choices that families make and to work with businesses, finding the natural point at which a homeowner needs to replace his or her boiler and to incentivise the take-up of a greener choice. He says that the £450 million investment is somehow inadequate, but I think that it will kick-start demand. Octopus Energy and others have said overnight that they think that they can make heat pumps at an equivalent cost to natural gas boilers by April 2022. I have confidence in the ability of British industry and British energy companies to innovate.

On energy-intensive industries, we have our £350 million industry energy transformation fund and we are speaking continually with the sector. We will keep the House informed on that. On nuclear, I have said that new money has been announced. There is the £120 million future nuclear enabling fund for optionality for future advanced modular reactors. Of course we are sticking to our commitment for a final investment decision on a further nuclear power station to be taken in this Parliament.

On hydrogen, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the German Government have done good work, through my good friend Peter Altmaier, the German industry and trade Minister, but the UK also has a world-leading hydrogen strategy, which was launched in August. We are aiming for 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen generation capacity by the year 2030.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final comment about 2030, our commitment is unchanged, but let us look at his commitment for a moment. [Hon. Members: “It was 2035.”] His leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), backed a 2019 manifesto commitment to go to net zero by 2030. Such a commitment would cripple the hard-won economic growth that we have achieved over the past 30 years through our steady approach of growing the economy and reducing emissions at the same time. Even the GMB has said:

“Nobody thinks 2030 is a remotely achievable deadline.”

The CBI has said that there is no credible plan to achieving net zero by 2030. This Government have the right ambition. This is a transition, and it is full of opportunities for jobs and low and zero carbon growth across the UK. The right hon. Gentleman should be backing it in full in the lead-up to Glasgow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Nobody should doubt the Government’s commitment to getting a switch to electric vehicles. I certainly hope that the shadow Secretary of State has been taking an interest in that in recent times—

[Edward Miliband]

indicated assent.

Gas Prices and Energy Suppliers

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on rising gas prices and the collapse of energy suppliers.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

I came before the House on Monday to update colleagues on the action we are taking, and I appeared before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee yesterday to discuss the matter in greater depth. The Government have been clear that protecting consumers is our primary focus and shapes our entire approach to this issue. We will continue to protect consumers with the energy price cap.

The global gas situation has had an impact on some energy suppliers, and I have been in touch daily with Ofgem. As it set out yesterday, there are more than 50 suppliers in the domestic market, and we may, unfortunately, see more suppliers exit the market in the coming weeks. However, it is not unusual for energy suppliers to leave the market, for various reasons, particularly when wholesale global prices are rising. Ofgem and the Government have clear, well-rehearsed processes in place to make sure that all customers are supplied with energy.

Our approach will be informed by the following principles: protecting customers, especially vulnerable ones, from price spikes. The solution to this crisis will be found from the industry and the market, as is already happening, and I repeat that the Government will not be bailing out failed energy companies. We would like to see a competitive energy market that can deliver choice and lower prices. The energy price cap, which continues to protect millions of customers, will remain in place. Consumers come first, and that has always been the centrepiece of our approach.

[Edward Miliband]

On Monday, I said to the Secretary of State that he was being far too complacent about the situation we are facing. Events since have, unfortunately, borne that out: complacent about the crisis in the market; complacent about the impact on families; and complacent about the cost of living crisis. He pretended on Monday and again today that it was normal for a number of suppliers to go down each winter, but what we are dealing with is far from normal: 800,000 customers losing their suppliers yesterday alone and 1.5 million in the last six weeks. So will he now answer the question he has so far failed to answer: does he believe taxpayers’ money will be necessary to stabilise the market? If so, how will he ensure value for money and that we do not simply end up with greater concentration of the big six suppliers?

Next, I have a letter here that Ofgem wrote to the Secretary of State when he was the Energy Minister 18 months ago during covid, warning about

“systemic risk to the energy supply sector as a whole”.

It said the usual Ofgem mechanism, the supplier of last resort, may not be possible. It went on:

“The failure of medium and large suppliers would need to be handled via a special administration regime placing significant burden and costs on government.”

So will he answer the question of what planning was done for this eventuality following that letter? Surely the Government should be in a position now to know exactly what needs to be done where there is systemic risk to suppliers. Have they not left the country dangerously exposed, with them scrabbling around for solutions?

Finally, we are seven days from the cut to universal credit. This is the last time a Government Minister will be in the House explaining to millions of families why they are plunging them further into fuel poverty. Instead of warm words or platitudes, can the Secretary of State now tell the British people how he can possibly justify this attack on their living standards? Is it not the truth that there can be no defence of it, and that the only right, proper and fair thing to do is to cancel the cut?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Obviously, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. We have not been complacent. The whole point about the supplier of last resort process, which was interrogated last year, is that it is an organised, well-established process that can allow existing strong companies to absorb customers and failure. [Interruption.] If he would desist from chuntering from a sedentary position, he might actually hear my answer.

I remember the letter last year. We interrogated, all through the covid process, the systems we had in place. During that period, the supplier of last resort was found to work. So far this year, it has been found to work, so I am not going to try to talk ourselves into exacerbating the crisis.

With regard to the special administration regime, that is something that is in place. Thankfully, we have not had to use that, but the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as many people in this House that it is there should the case arise.

With respect to universal credit, I will say what I said earlier in the week. That is a matter across Government in terms of budgetary responsibility. There will be a Budget at the end of October and there will be plenty of time to discuss that then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I have said, we have a supplier of last resort process that has worked well in the past couple of years. It is not my job to state the terms on which customers are absorbed by other companies—

[Edward Miliband]

It kind of is.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

No, not ahead of the process. However, most of these prices are at or just below the price cap, and that is fundamentally what will protect consumers in this period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I know, as a former Treasury Minister, that my hon. Friend is very focused on making the green transition as economically successful as possible. I and others in the Government are very focused on getting a proper electric vehicle charge roll-out, and I would be happy to speak to her to discuss the plans that we have adopted.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Families looking at soaring gas prices will be deeply worried about how they will pay their bills. One of the reasons UK households are particularly vulnerable is the Government’s failure on home insulation. Emissions from buildings are in fact higher today than in 2015. I am afraid to say that the Secretary of State’s record is abysmal, with the fiasco of the green homes grant, cuts to spending, a heat and buildings strategy originally promised for spring 2020 which is still not published, and no proper plan for retrofit. Will he admit that families this winter will be paying the price of the Government’s failure on home insulation?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will not admit that at all. The right hon. Gentleman got the date wrong—it was to be published in quarter 1 of 2021. I was the Energy Minister who said that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Yes, it is still late, and I want to publish it as quickly as possible. I can admit that candidly.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the green homes grant. I remind him that of the £3 billion that was sequestered—ringfenced—for the green homes grant, £1.5 billion was disbursed through Salix for public buildings, and that worked very well, while £500 million was disbursed by local authorities, and that was successful. The owner-occupier bit of it was a six-month programme—a short-term fiscal stimulus—that we have closed, and we are going to have a replacement imminently.

[Edward Miliband]

It is a complete fiasco. The Secretary of State actually cut the money that was supposed to be allocated to homeowners.

At least half a million families are going to be thrown into fuel poverty by the rise in energy prices. On top of that, along with national insurance rises, millions of families are facing a £1,000 a year cut in universal credit in just 10 days’ time. It is a Tory triple whammy made in Downing Street. Will the Secretary of State stand up for the millions of people who are deeply worried about their bills and tell the Prime Minister that he should cancel the universal credit cut?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I have a sense of déjà vu, as we addressed this issue directly yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman knows with his experience—I was going to say in government but I mean and in opposition—that universal credit is a matter for the Chancellor, in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

UK Gas Market

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and agree that we should not be alarmist on the issue of security of supply, but I fear his statement was much too complacent on the price and economic impacts of the current situation.

First, on continuity of supply, we support the Secretary of State taking all necessary measures to ensure that families and businesses continue to have access to energy and that we secure the issue of CO₂ supplies. The Secretary of State says that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that customers of failing companies get taken on, but the scale of the problems in the market will provide an unprecedented test of those mechanisms, so does he believe that taxpayer support will be necessary to deal with the problem? If it is, we must ensure value for money. I welcome his caution about outcomes that lead to taxpayer subsidy for big companies to further concentrate their market share, but can he therefore explain the alternatives and what he proposes happens to the customers of suppliers that do not get through this crisis? He is making a statement later this afternoon, and it would be good to know what he is going to say.

Secondly, on the impact of price rises on businesses and industry, can the Secretary of State set out his plans to support businesses, particularly energy-intensive industries? Has he considered with his colleagues the provision of Government support, including possibly loans, to help businesses facing difficulties? On consumer support, he is right to keep the price cap in place—it is a measure I have long supported—but the rise in the price cap of £139 means half a million more families will be plunged into fuel poverty. At a minimum, he should be looking at making the operation of the £140 warm home discount automatic and possibly extending it, but even that will not be enough. Families are facing a triple whammy: rising energy prices, national insurance rises, and, at the end of this month, the £1,000 cut in universal credit. These energy price rises turn the indefensible decision on universal credit into an unconscionable one. If he really wants to put consumers first, if he really wants to help working people, and if he really wants to tackle fuel poverty, is it not time, even at this late stage, to cancel this terrible decision on universal credit?

Thirdly, we need to learn longer-term lessons from this crisis about the lack of resilience in our energy system that has contributed to very large price spikes. The Secretary of State is right that there are global issues, but the UK is facing particular difficulties. Let me give some examples of Government decision making. In 2017, the gas storage facility, Rough, then 75% of our storage, was planned for closure. The Government could have acted to keep it open but did nothing. Our lack of gas storage was raised by industry, the GMB union and the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in 2019, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). A Minister said in reply that

“the UK’s gas system is secure and well placed to respond effectively to unexpected changes in supply and demand”.

Were the Government not, then as now, far too complacent on the issue of gas storage?

Next, energy efficiency could significantly cut the demand for gas, but we have had the fiasco of the green deal followed by the fiasco of the green homes grant and then the delayed heat and buildings strategy, and emissions from buildings are today higher than in 2015. When is the Secretary of State going to have a proper retrofit plan?

Our new nuclear programme is stalled, and while the Secretary of State is right that we have made progress on renewables, the truth is that we need to go further and faster, with a more diverse supply. Above all, there is not yet enough of a clear plan from Government for how we meet net zero with affordability and security. People have read what the Climate Change Committee said in its most recent progress report this summer:

“It is hard to discern any comprehensive strategy”.

Is not the truth that there is a direct line from the delay, dither and failure to the issues we face today?

I therefore urge the Secretary of State in the midst of this crisis to use this autumn’s net zero strategy—delayed—the net zero review, also delayed, and the comprehensive spending review to finally put in place a proper plan. Households, businesses and energy suppliers are looking to the Government for support and direction as we face this crisis; it requires not words but action and delivery. It is long past time for Government to get a grip.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I apologise, Mr Speaker, for issuing such a lengthy statement.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about a plan, but we have plans and strategies galore. We have the energy White Paper, which was widely well received and which I was very happy to present as Energy Minister, and we also have the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I was struck by the fact that when former US Secretary of State John Kerry came to the UK he publicly said that the UK’s plans for decarbonisation were more advanced than those of any other country.

The right hon. Gentleman has a legitimate concern about vulnerable customers, and I have made it very clear to the industry and to Ofgem that they are absolutely our No. 1 priority. We are looking at the warm home discount. As a Government, we have always focused on protecting the vulnerable and people in fuel poverty, and we will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

It is not for me to comment on Russian energy policy or strategy here, although we can speculate about its motives. My job, and that of the Government, is to ensure that, whatever Russia does, we have security of supply and can protect our most vulnerable consumers. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Edward Miliband]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Is it relevant to what has just happened?

[Edward Miliband]

Yes, Mr Speaker.

To follow on from the point made by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), I submit that it really is not good practice for the Secretary of State to come to this House and say that he will make a joint statement with Ofgem this afternoon to set out the Government’s next steps, but refuse to tell Members what is in that joint statement. The point of his coming to the House is for him to be questioned on Government policy—including policy to be announced this afternoon.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that this is an extremely fast-moving and dynamic environment. As of 4.32 today, we have not finalised the statement, so it would be premature of me to make an announcement right now. There will be subsequent House of Commons events—we have oral parliamentary questions tomorrow and I am to appear before the Select Committee on Wednesday—so we can discuss these issues in full detail in the next few days.