Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Edward Miliband and Clive Betts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman puts it incredibly well. That is why what the Government are coming up with is such a nonsense idea.

The Government are breaking not just a manifesto promise—no doubt they will say that the manifesto was drawn up before the Russian invasion of Ukraine—but a promise made by Ministers in April this year. The Business Secretary’s response is not to abide by the promise but to try to shift the goalposts. In his immortal words, which I hope MPs will take back to their constituents,

“tolerating a higher degree of risk and disturbance appears to us to be in the national interest”—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 40WS.]

I think that could be a description of the Government. This is a matter of trust. How can communities across this country trust a Government who say one thing categorically in their manifesto, repeat it in April, and then go back on their word with no mandate from the British people?

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend talked about the Government imposing the ban because of the risk of disturbance to local communities. There was a proposal to frack in Marsh Lane, which happens to be in a neighbouring constituency—that of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who I think has responsibility for planning and will perhaps deal with fracking. There would be dozens, if not hundreds of lorry movements a day down rural lanes—that is what “disturbance” means—and lots of wells drilled that would despoil the local environment. That is the reality of fracking, which every Conservative Member should think about if they are prepared to accept fracking in their local areas.

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well and I agree.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Edward Miliband and Clive Betts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I will get to the question of funding and whether it is an investment in the future. The figures I have read out are actually flattering to the era since 1979. I am genuinely saying that this a cross-party failure, because under the right to buy we have sold off 2 million homes since 1979—far more than we have built.

The question is, what do we do? My argument is that this is not just about a change in policy. It is actually about a change in the whole philosophy on social housing. I argue that there are three principles that have been in effect since ’79 and need to be replaced. These principles were brought in by the ’79 Government, but have not fundamentally changed.

The first principle is that the market will provide; the market will build. We know from experience, despite the many efforts of different Governments, that the structural barriers in the market such as developers, incentives to build for the high end of the market and the cost of land mean that the market will not provide sufficient housing at the scale and speed required. There is no historical evidence to suggest otherwise. Indeed, the figures show that it is not in the private sector that the failure to build is most pronounced compared with the 1970s; it is actually in the social housing sector.

The thing that we have all missed is that the social housing sector is the bedrock of an effectively functioning housing market. In other words, it does not just benefit those who live in social homes. It benefits everybody, because it is more likely to keep prices down and avoids some of the problems that we see in the private rented sector. The Government have to be fair and recognise—at least at the level of principle—that saying the market will build will not cut it any more, and that the Government need to play a substantial role when it comes to building.

[Mr Betts]

My right hon. Friend is making a valuable point. I think it was the last Housing Minister but four—now the Prime Minister’s chief of staff—who accepted that social house building provides continuity to the construction industry, as it does not go up and down with the cycles of the private sector. That is very important for maintaining skills in the industry in the long term.

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

The second principle is that we need to acknowledge that the Government have come to see social housing as a residual for the neediest in our society, but that was not the origin of social housing. It was a tool to meet the needs of middle and lower-income families. That is particularly relevant today, given that 2016 figures from Shelter show that 78% of private renting households cannot afford to buy, even with Help to Buy. Why should the choice for those families be confined to the often substandard and highly expensive private rented sector? They should have a chance of social housing too. As one of my fellow Shelter commissioners—who happens to be a Conservative—puts it, we need to think again of social housing as meeting aspiration and need. That is a fundamental change, but it was part of the original vision of everyone from Nye Bevan to Harold Macmillan.

The third principle relates to the intervention by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris)—the question of where we put our money. Essentially, the choice that has been made since Lady Thatcher has been to put money into housing benefit and various subsidies including Help to Buy. What we have again missed is that investing in housing is investing in an essential part of our infrastructure. Dare I say it, it is as much a part of our essential infrastructure as transport—including High Speed 2—or schools and hospitals, and it is value for money because of the return on that investment.

In case hon. Members do not take my word for it, they can listen to Lord Porter, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association. I have only just discovered Lord Porter—an important discovery. On Monday he proposed that we build not 10,000 but 100,000 social homes a year, saying:

“The gains are enormous. Investments in social housing could generate returns up to £320bn over 50 years, helping countless families along the way by creating local jobs and building homes people need and can afford.”

The reason I talk about those principles is that they drive the scale of the response. If we recognise the principles of the limits to the market, who social housing should be for and the that fact there is a return on investment—that to borrow to invest in social housing is a sensible move for the country—we will be led to a much bigger response than we saw in the Budget. As I said, it is good that the Government have changed course in a number of respects, but this is an era for boldness, not incrementalism, and I am afraid that the scale of boldness required is not in the Budget.

I will end by discussing why this really matters. It is actually about Brexit—I am sorry about that. The vote to leave was in part a cry of pain about the loss of hope and the loss of a sense of community. We should not idealise the past, but social housing was absolutely part of that. But this is not just about nostalgia. It is about whether people’s kids and grandkids will have a better life. And here’s the thing: in a world and a country where we seem divided on everything, this issue unites remain voters and leave voters, young people and old people, people in the south and people in the north. Whatever happens with Brexit, we need to bring the country together. I can think of nothing more likely to unite people across the divides than long-term investment in social housing, but it needs to be at scale. Incrementalism is not enough; we need a bolder offer. It is there in our history, from Bevan to Macmillan, and we need a Government who will discover it.

High Speed 2: Yorkshire

Debate between Edward Miliband and Clive Betts

Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

On both sides of the House.

I am grateful to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported the debate, and particularly to my right hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and indeed all my hon. Friends.

I want to make it clear right at the outset that I have always supported the principle of HS2, and I still do. But the whole reason for it must be to seek to do something about the deep inequalities our country faces, and my colleagues and I fear that that will not be the outcome of the decisions currently being advocated. We have called this debate because HS2, having supported the Sheffield Meadowhall route year after year, has changed its mind and is now recommending what is called the M18 route through my constituency, with a spur to Sheffield Midland. In my remarks, I want to take on the issue of whether that makes sense. I do not believe it does make sense in terms of maximising the economic benefits of HS2 or tackling the deep inequalities in our country, connectivity and value for money. I hope the Minister, and indeed the Secretary of State, will be as fair minded as we have been in listening to the arguments that have been made.

There are five arguments that HS2 is making. The first is around what it calls the conflicting demands of the region. In considering this issue, it is worth remembering why Meadowhall was originally chosen—it was because of its excellent connections to the rest of the region, with a journey time to London of 68 minutes and five trains an hour. This is what Sir David Higgins himself said in October 2014 about the alternative option, which he now recommends. HS2 examined

“a spur terminating at Sheffield Midland station. While this provided limited benefits for the city centre market, it did not provide the connections and journey times necessary to serve the wider Sheffield city region effectively, particularly Rotherham and Barnsley.”

I could not have put it better myself. He went on to say that this approach would not deliver

“an equitable approach across the North or meet the vision of a truly high speed network for the country.”

So HS2 is currently recommending an approach it describes as worse for equity, connectivity, capacity and journey times.

Given all that, Members might think that the M18 option was better for Sheffield city centre. My colleagues from Sheffield will obviously take their own view on that, but I contend that that is not the case. Why do I say that? The so-called city centre option that is now being recommended actually means slower journey times from London to Sheffield city centre than the previous Meadowhall option. The House should not take my word for it; it should listen to HS2’s own figures.

According to HS2, the old Meadowhall route meant a journey time into Sheffield Midland from London of 79 minutes, even with a change of trains. The time on the new route is somewhere between 85 and 87 minutes, and could actually be longer. Not only that, but there would have been five trains an hour—now there will be a maximum of two. The trains will be half the length of HS2 trains, and they will not be on the HS2 track; they will be on what HS2 euphemistically calls “classic” track—I think that means the old track, which is subject to all the delays and problems that exist. I believe that Sheffield and South Yorkshire are being sold a pup on this route. That is true whether we look at the economic benefit or the passenger numbers; on all the issues that matter, the benefits of Sheffield Meadowhall are much greater than those of the Midland option.

The second argument HS2 makes is around city centre connectivity—the need to go from Leeds city centre to Sheffield city centre, for example. When I have asked HS2 about this, it has said, “Well, Transport for the North”—hon. Members will know about that organisation—“has really changed our thinking on this.” So last week I rang up the head of Transport for the North, David Brown, who was bemused, to say the least, to hear that he had driven this change. He told me that he certainly had not expressed a view about which option was better. He actually said that it was disingenuous to claim that he had driven this change. That is not surprising, because the old Meadowhall route meant a journey time from Leeds city centre into Sheffield city centre of 27 minutes, which is under the half an hour that is the ambition that Transport for the North has for this city centre connectivity.

There is an even more serious problem with the Sheffield Midland option that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has exposed with persistent questioning—whether there is the engineering capacity at Sheffield Midland to meet the ambitions of Transport for the North for up to 20 trains an hour. There are real doubts about this. I would like the Minister to tell us—because I have asked HS2 and it has not given a straight answer—what the engineering constraints are at Sheffield Midland. Currently two trains an hour are being proposed, and there is the potential for two more if other links are built.

The third argument that HS2 makes is about demand. This basically says that there is not the demand in South Yorkshire that justifies the five trains an hour that would have run to Meadowhall, so instead there will be up to two trains an hour, which could of course be one or two—and we have to remember that they are half the size of the old HS2 trains. I think that this is the same as the defeatism that the proponents of HS2 often accuse its critics of. In other words, it is saying, “This kind of economic intervention isn’t going to make a big difference so we are talking about one fifth of the capacity of the original Meadowhall proposal.” That is defeatist and wrong. It is downgrading South Yorkshire, and that is the wrong thing to do.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the capacity of Sheffield Midland station, particularly if we want to increase the number of trains to Manchester, for example. There is an additional problem that he might like to mention, which is that the electrification of the midland main line is not going to go ahead in the mainstream programme, and there is no money in anybody’s budget to fund this, as I understand it.

[Edward Miliband]

That is an incredibly important point. I will come on to the vexed question of costs, because that will obviously be a concern of the Minister, and I understand the reasons for that.

HS2’s fourth argument is about what it calls local constraints—that is, the urban industrial density and the environmental challenges of the Meadowhall route. However, HS2 itself admits in its most recent document that what it calls the constructability issues at Meadowhall can be overcome, and, as I have said, the engineering challenges of the city centre are completely unanswered.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Debate between Edward Miliband and Clive Betts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

My right hon. Friend, who has a distinguished record on these matters, is right.

We face a third problem with low-carbon transition: planning, which my hon. Friends have mentioned. I am afraid that both sides of the coalition subscribe to the idea that they should abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Its abolition is absolutely the last thing that we need. For years, the thing that has held up large-scale energy projects is planning. We have worked with business to establish a system to provide certainty in which directions are set by accountable politicians and specific decisions are resolved independently. Business welcomed it and the CBI said that it was

“vital for the strategic infrastructure”,

but now the Government want to scrap it. And who gets to make the decision on new nuclear plants under the new system? None other than the Secretary of State, because politicians have retaken control, but he has a policy in which even the coalition agreement does not have confidence. On the essential test of the long-term direction on climate change—on how we decarbonise our energy supply—I fear that the Government are already failing.

[Mr Betts]

I should like to raise the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) mentioned: the proposed £80 million loan for Sheffield Forgemasters to which the previous Government agreed. Is it not vital, if we are to develop a new nuclear industry in this country, that British industry is given the best chance to compete for work in building new nuclear reactors? Is it not worrying not only that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will take the decision on nuclear, but that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will take the decision about the review of the grant to Sheffield Forgemasters?

[Edward Miliband]

Let me welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and welcome you back to the House.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and he prefigures the next part of my speech, because the second test is whether we can show that low carbon is about not just climate change, but the future of our economy. To his credit, the Secretary of State talked about the importance of an industrial strategy.

In the last 18 months, the previous Government pursued an active industrial strategy. Four of the world’s five biggest offshore wind manufacturers all said that they were coming to Britain: Siemens, GE, Clipper, and Mitsubishi. Nissan said that it would make electric cars in Sunderland. We also created the chance to be at the centre of the nuclear supply chain through Sheffield Forgemasters. Those things happened not by accident, but because we had a plan that recognised that even in a market economy, Government must nurture new industries that the private sector will not invest in on its own.

In their manifesto, the Liberal Democrats promised £400 million of Government investment in shipyards in the north of England and Scotland, to convert them to wind energy. We no longer hear anything about that; we do not hear of it in the coalition agreement or in the Gracious Speech. It is worse than that, as was indicated in the interventions on the Secretary of State’s speech. Now the Government say that every spending decision since January will be reviewed. That includes decisions on grants to companies such as Mitsubishi to make wind turbines; port investment for offshore wind manufacturers, which is very important; money for Nissan to build electric vehicles; and the £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters regarding the nuclear supply chain.

Remember, the Liberal Democrats said at the election that they agreed with Labour that spending should not be cut this year, so I have to say to the Secretary of State that this uncertainty is a total betrayal of their position at the election. They went round the country telling people that there should not be spending cuts this year; they agreed with us. People will have voted Liberal Democrat, apparently confident in the knowledge that the Liberal Democrats were with us on the question of industrial investment.