Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
In the past month, the former Prime Minister who legislated for net zero has condemned the Minister’s oil and gas policy. His colleague the former COP President has accused the Government of “not being serious” and the Government’s net zero tsar has resigned his seat in disgust. Why does the Minister think that that is?
Graham Stuart
As we have rehearsed, the UK is the first major economy to halve its emissions. It is the one that is delivering more going forward. It is so important that we recognise that we will continue to need oil and gas for decades to come. The Labour party’s policy will do the opposite; it will weaken British jobs, reduce taxes and put up emissions, and that is why we remain committed, working across society, to ensuring that we deliver.
Edward Miliband
It is not just us who oppose the Minister’s Bill, but those on his own side—he has lost an MP over it. I know he brought down the last Government over fracking; he is trying to do it again with his new Bill. That is the reason that people have lost confidence. They see the hottest year on record and a Government backsliding on net zero. Is it not the truth that the Conservatives who know and care most about climate change no longer support this Government?
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman would love to think that was the case, but the Conservative party is united in driving this forward and in delivering. We are powering up Britain from Britain. We have taken ourselves from the abject position left by him when he was in government, which so many of my colleagues have described. We must not go back to that, because it would put bills up, it would put emissions up, and it would stop us being the global net zero leader that we are.
COP28
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and, indeed, for his regular commuting between Dubai and Westminster. Given that he brought the last Government down over fracking, I think he did not want a repeat performance, hence his return.
I welcome some of the key outcomes from COP28, including in particular the commitments on renewables and, crucially, a transition away from fossil fuels. That shows that the COP process, however flawed and imperfect, can provide a forcing mechanism for action by Governments. I pay tribute to the civil servants in the Minister’s Department for their hard work. Indeed, by a remarkable coincidence, the breakthrough in the negotiations occurred in the 24 hours when the Minister came home and they were left in charge.
But, for all the advances made, the truth is that the world is still hurtling towards disaster, way off track for keeping 1.5° alive. While we need an over-40% reduction in emissions by 2030, we are currently on track for emissions not to fall but to rise, and a temperature rise of approaching 3°. Even after the agreement, that is the reality, so the question for the world in the run-up to COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil is whether good words at COP28 are finally matched by actions equal to the scale of the emergency.
These will be the defining two years in this decisive decade, which will shape the lives of generations to come, so we need a Government in the UK who will stop congratulating themselves and using the UK’s record as an excuse for future inaction and instead lead at home in a way that is consistent with what we are demanding of others. The Minister complained about a lack of action on coal at the COP, but the Government are opening a new coalmine, watering down emissions targets, seeking to drill every last drop in the North sea and starting a culture war on net zero. That has sent a terrible message to business, investors and other Governments; one that was heard loud and clear by people at the COP.
Let me ask the Minister four questions about the Government’s approach. First, the COP decision says that we need to “transition away from fossil fuels” in line with the science. The science is unequivocal: for us to meet 1.5°, we must leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. He is right that many countries fear that some will seek to use loopholes in the COP agreement to avoid that reality. Our Government are doing precisely that: they say they want to drill every last drop in the North sea. The International Energy Agency, the Energy Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee and the former president of the COP, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), all say that that is incompatible with the science. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries in the next two years that they must leave their fossil fuels in the ground when he wants to extract all of ours?
Secondly, on targets for 2030 and beyond, the COP decision makes it clear that we need not just ambition but policies that will meet those targets. However, the Climate Change Committee says that we are way off track for our 2030 nationally determined contribution. Can the Minister explain how he expects to persuade other countries to have policies to meet their targets when anyone can see that we are miles off meeting ours?
Thirdly, on finance, I welcome the contribution on loss and damage, but does the Minister recognise the lack of confidence that the Government will meet their promise to provide £11.6 billion of climate finance? Can he explain how he expects to persuade other Governments to keep their promises on finance when people suspect we will not keep ours?
Fourthly and finally, when the Prime Minister spends his time at home describing net zero as a massive burden—which is what he does—how does he remotely expect to persuade others, particularly those in the developing world, that it is a great opportunity? The Prime Minister claimed that nobody at COP raised with him his dither and delay; I suspect that was because he was not there long enough to hear the truth. His U-turns have been incredibly damaging for our country.
The positive outcomes at COP came despite this Government, not because of them. Britain needs a Government who will show climate leadership again—not climate hypocrisy—to cut bills, deliver energy independence, grow our economy and protect future generations. In the next two years more than ever, the world needs climate leadership from Britain. Is the truth not that people at home and abroad have seen enough to know this Government cannot provide the leadership that the world so urgently needs?
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. I welcome what he said about the overall COP result and the need to celebrate it and build on it, and the fact that we need to ensure actions match words in this critical decade. That was one of the things we were wrestling with most, because new NDCs for 2035 are being worked on now for announcement ahead of the Belém COP in the Amazon in 2025, but it is in this decade that we need to bend the curve further. It is absolutely right that we do so.
The right hon. Gentleman has focused on performance, and I am pleased to say that this Government have met every single carbon budget to date. The only major targets set on climate change in this country that have been failed were—let me think—the target of 10% renewables by 2010, set by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2010, again set by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served, was also failed. Every single carbon budget for which this Government have been responsible since my then party leader became the first leader to call for the Climate Change Act 2008 has been met. Our record is without parallel, and I will not have it trash-talked down by the right hon. Gentleman, whose record in government is so at odds with the words he uses.
On oil and gas, we are a net importer. We are transitioning; as I have set out, we are reducing our emissions faster than any other major economy on this planet. None the less, according to the Climate Change Committee, about 25% of our power will come from oil and gas even in 2050. We will be using mitigation technologies to offset that, but the idea that we should replace domestically produced gas with imported gas with four times the embedded emissions, when it will make no difference to our consumption, is environmental nonsense. That is why we are standing up for the 200,000 people who work in our oil and gas industry as it transitions; it is why we support the £50 billion in taxes that comes from that industry; and it is why we must retain the expertise of people in the sector going forward. The Labour party puts at risk our net zero transition—a transition that it did not set out on properly when it was in government, and that this Government are delivering on. As I said, we have met all our carbon budgets to date.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point about loss and damage. I assure him and the House that we will meet our target of £11.6 billion in climate finance on the original timetable set out by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister came to COP, personally committed and passionate about ensuring that nature and forests—on which we have been a leader—were championed at that COP. Hopefully, I will be able to give more detail about that when answering other questions. As we move into the coming year ahead of the Baku COP, we will focus on a new, collective, quantified financial goal. The Prime Minister, with his focus and expertise, will ensure that the UK is an absolute leader in getting that right, amplifying the billions we have today into the trillions we need tomorrow.
Offshore Wind Contracts
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if she will make a statement on the implications for offshore wind of contracts for difference allocation round 5.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The first annual contracts for difference auction—the first that we have ever done—was completed last week and delivered a total of 3.7 GW of renewable electricity, with contracts going to a record number of projects. The auction delivered significant quantities of new solar and onshore wind generation, as well as supporting 11 new tidal stream projects and, for the first time, geothermal projects. It was a competitive auction, set against a backdrop of highly challenging macroeconomic conditions that have impacted the sector globally. Given that this was our first annual round, it was to be expected that it would have a lower capacity than the previous biennial rounds, and, because last year’s round was the first for three years, a higher annual element than that record round.
The Government remain committed to offshore and floating offshore wind projects, and this round provides valuable learning for subsequent auctions. Work has already started on allocation round 6, incorporating the results of the recent round, and we look forward to a strong pipeline of technologies being able to participate. The move to annual auctions means that allocation round 6 will open in just six months’ time, in March 2024, which means that there could be minimal or indeed no delay in the deployment of new capacity through that round.
The Government also remain committed to our target of decarbonising the power system by 2035 and our ambitions for 50 GW of offshore wind, including up to 5 GW of floating offshore wind. Our trajectory for meeting these aims, as well as our legally binding carbon budget 6 targets, is not linear. The outcome for one technology in one auction does not prevent us from reaching those goals.
Edward Miliband
What a load of nonsense. No wonder the Secretary of State is in hiding.
This auction is an energy security disaster for Britain, and an act of economic self- harm on the part of the Government. No new offshore wind projects means that families’ energy bills will £2 billion higher and our energy security will be weakened. Worst of all, this was totally avoidable. Ministers were warned again and again about the impacts of higher inflation—in a letter from RenewableUK in March, and again in July—and offshore wind is so much cheaper than gas that they could have raised the price in the auction and it would still have saved billions of pounds for families, but they refused to listen.
First, will the Minister tell us why the Government ignored those repeated warnings? Secondly, he said on Friday that every country was in the same boat, but that is just wrong. Ireland listened to industry and adjusted its price, and had a successful auction in March 2023. Why did the Government not learn that lesson? Thirdly, is not the terrible truth that this episode reveals a much deeper flaw in their approach? For month after month this summer, they claimed that the answer to our energy crisis was more oil and gas, and this is the result. We will now be more dependent on expensive, insecure fossil fuels. We will be more exposed to the whims of petrostates and dictators. Every wind farm that we fail to build makes us more exposed to dictators like Putin, and he knows it.
Bills higher, security worse, jobs lost, climate failure—the Government have trashed offshore wind, the crown jewels of our energy system, raising bills, just as they trashed onshore wind by banning it, raising bills, and just as they trashed home insulation, raising bills. We have seen 13 years of failed energy policy, and all this fiasco shows is that the Conservatives are, quite simply, a party unfit to govern.
Graham Stuart
I was pleased to see the other day that the rumours of the right hon. Gentleman no longer being in his position were not true. It is perhaps understandable in that context that he is so passionate about this highly successful round that has seen 3.7 GW on an annualised basis. I think that is a record round. He was a member of the previous Labour Government who left this country with 6.7% of its electricity coming from renewables. In the first quarter of this year, 48% of our electricity was from renewables. It was this Government, with our contracts for difference system, who transformed the economics of offshore wind. We have 77 GW of offshore wind in the pipeline—more than enough. We have 7.5—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman understandably, given the weakness of his arguments, wants to heckle at all times, knowing how easy it is to dismantle them. He asks me where that capacity is, and I can tell him that 7.5 GW is currently under construction.
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman fails to be on the side of consumers. We moved to an annualised auction precisely to ensure that we could learn the lessons from each round, add them to our industry insight and ensure that we could move forward. The projects take multiple years to be developed, and none of them has disappeared. I predict that, moving on from the triumph of 3.7 GW of renewables, which came through successfully on Friday, allocation round 6 will be more successful still. We will continue to build our reputation as the country that has cut emissions more than any other major economy and that has transformed our electricity generation. He mentioned insulation—how he has the gall, I do not know. We have moved from 14% of homes being properly insulated when he left power to over 50% by the end of this year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stuart
It is ironic that the hon. Lady says that. We have already set out the position: our energy efficiency figures have gone from 14% to about 50%, and our renewable electricity figures have gone from 7% to about 50%. The rest of the world, I am pleased to say, is playing catch-up.
Graham Stuart
It is playing catch-up. The Opposition do not believe in powering Britain from Britain, and they do not believe in supporting the record. The truth is that the UK has cut its emissions by more than any other major economy. Rather than hosing credits in the direction of businesses, we have a regulatory system that encourages investment.
Powering Up Britain
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, but let me tell him that although there may have been thousands of pages published this morning, this is not the green day that the Government promised, but a groundhog day of reannouncements, reheated policy and no new investment. The documents are most notable for their glaring omissions: there is no removal of the onshore wind ban that is costing families hundreds of pounds on bills a year. There is no new money for energy efficiency to insulate homes and cut bills, just a reannouncement of a feeble offer made last year. There is no net zero mandate for Ofgem, as recommended by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore)—to whom I too pay tribute—and as demanded by industry. There is no proper response to the Inflation Reduction Act, even as the rest of the world speeds ahead.
The biggest indictment of all, buried in the fine print and not mentioned by the Minister, is the admission that the policies announced today do not deliver the promise, solemnly made in front of the world at COP26 in Glasgow barely a year ago, to meet the UK’s 2030 climate target. The Government waited until noon, five hours after all the other documents were published, to release the carbon budget delivery plan—which is more like the failure to deliver the carbon budget plan. This is what it says:
“We have quantified emissions savings to deliver…92% of the NDC.”
A target for less than seven years’ time, and now almost 10% off—what an indictment of all the verbiage we have heard today. All the policies and all the hot air do not meet the promise that the Government made on the world stage under the presidency of the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), to whom I also pay tribute. That means higher bills, energy insecurity, fewer jobs and climate failure.
Let me ask the Minister five questions. First, if the Government really wanted a sprint for clean power, they would go for onshore wind. They even promised to lift the ban last December, but the proposals in their consultation have been written off by industry as doing
“almost nothing to lift the draconian ban”.
The previous Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—hardly an eco-warrior—promised to bring the planning regime for onshore wind into line with other infrastructure. Why will the Minister not take that step?
Secondly, there is no new investment in hydrogen. Germany is investing €9 billion in hydrogen, compared with £240 million from the UK. Does the Minister recognise the failure of ambition? Thirdly, it is good that the Government have finally allocated some resources to CCS, although I am old enough to remember the £1 billion CCS competition announced in 2008, 15 years ago, which they cancelled. However, they still appear to have no clue where the up to £20 billion of support is coming from, and it was not in the Budget documents. Can the Minister clear that up?
Fourthly, on the response to the Inflation Reduction Act, British businesses are crying out for action now, yet the Minister’s own documents published today show that the UK is investing less than France and less than Germany, and once the Inflation Reduction Act kicks in, we will be investing less than the USA. Is that not a clear admission that we are falling behind? Finally, can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that as I said, the Government’s 2030 target announced at COP26 will not be met by these policies, and can he tell us how the UK can possibly claim the mantle of delivering on climate leadership when it is way off track to deliver the promise it made at the COP we hosted?
At the same time, the Government pursue their “every last drop” strategy on oil and gas. Let me tell the House what that means: it means funnelling £11.4 billion to the oil and gas companies making record profits, and ignoring what 700 leading scientists told the Government yesterday, which is that new exploration will not cut bills, will not deliver energy security and will severely undermine UK climate leadership. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) should listen to the scientists.
We know what a proper plan looks like: in 2030, zero carbon power; insulating 19 million cold, draughty homes in a decade; GB Energy to invest in all forms of low-carbon generation; and a national wealth fund investing in everything from clean steel to ports and electric vehicles to win the global race for Britain. [Interruption.] Yes, and nuclear power, too. This may be the fifth energy relaunch in two and a half years, but it is more of the same from this Government. They can relaunch their policies as many times as they like, but they fail and fail again.
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response, but Members on the Government Benches will have been listening with a certain degree of incredulity, because we remember that in 2010 he left the people of this country in the worst housing stock in Europe. They were cold, their bills were unmanageable and just 14% of houses were properly insulated. Now it is half, and we need to go further and faster, which is why we have the energy efficiency taskforce. It is why we have announced £6.5 billion in this Parliament, and it is why we are announcing today our new initiative on insulation. It is why there is another £6 billion to be spent between 2025 and 2028. The Labour party failed absolutely on the most basic thing: looking after people in their homes so they could pay their bills.
That is not all, however, because on renewables the Labour party now talks about this transformation by 2030, which no one other than the Labour party—it is not involved, I fear, in an entirely open, transparent, and possibly even honest exercise—believes can be delivered by 2030. What was Labour’s record on power? In 2010, 7% of our electricity came from renewables. If Labour in government had unleashed renewables the way we did, families this last winter would not have needed the Government to step in, because we would not have been so reliant on gas. It was Labour’s failure. It was 7% of electricity then, but it is nearly half today. This Government have transformed our performance, while the Labour party failed in power.
What are Labour’s ideas going forward? What do they consist of? While we have unlocked £200 billion of investment since we came into power, the Labour party, led by the hard left, with whom the right hon. Gentleman has always had more than a passing association, want through its GB Energy to nationalise an industry in which we have brought in global investment. Instead of unlocking renewables, Labour will, if it gets back into power, do exactly what it did in power last time: fail to deliver renewables, reverse the green transformation, fail to meet our carbon budget targets and let down Britain and every family, who will be back in cold, freezing homes with overly expensive bills to boot. That is what the Labour party offers.
We are internationally competitive. It is great that other countries, such as America with the Inflation Reduction Act, are seeking to catch up with us on things such as offshore wind. We support that. On onshore wind, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, as I have said, we are committed to reviewing it and ensuring that we can take it forward in a way that runs with the support and consent of local people.
In response to what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his words, three quarters of the power of this country today comes from fossil fuels, and we are the most decarbonised country in the G7. The right hon. Gentleman, the Labour party and the Scottish National party do not have a plan to stop using fossil fuels. What they have a plan for—this is unbelievable—is to make sure that we do not produce our own, that we import energy from abroad at the cost of billions and billions, that we make ourselves less energy secure, that we lose the 120,000 jobs, most of which are in Scotland, in the oil and gas industry and that we lose their capability to help deliver the hydrogen and carbon capture and storage industries upon which our decarbonisation path depends. The Labour party failed when it was in power. Its analysis of what it needs to do now is failing, too, and the British people will not be fooled.
Prepayment Meters: Ofgem Decision
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart
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 Ofgem’s decision to suspend the forced installation of prepayment meters.
The Minister for Energy and Climate (Graham Stuart)
As I have set out to the House previously, it is critical that our most vulnerable energy users are protected, which is why we have already put in place a generous package of support to help people with their energy bills this winter. I was appalled, however, to see reports that vulnerable customers struggling with their energy bills have had their homes invaded and prepayment meters installed when there is a clear duty on suppliers to provide them with support. Since those reports came to light, we have acted swiftly and we will not hesitate to go further to protect consumers.
The Secretary of State has called for more robust Ofgem enforcement on those issues, as well as, more importantly, action from suppliers. It is right that Ofgem has now taken the steps it has, including asking suppliers to pause forcible installation and to conduct a thorough review of processes, and I welcome steps from those suppliers who have already announced that they will do so. I welcome the move by Lord Justice Edis today, ordering magistrates courts in England and Wales to stop authorising warrants for energy firms to forcibly install prepayment meters with immediate effect.
The Government expect strong and immediate action where suppliers fall short of their obligations. I discussed these matters with the chief executive officer of Ofgem this morning, and I met the CEO of British Gas on 1 February to tell him of the strength of the Government’s concerns at the distress that his company has caused to customers. The Secretary of State has asked suppliers to set out by the end of the day tomorrow how they will make redress to customers who have inappropriately had a prepayment meter fitted, including the possibility of compensation, and I look forward to seeing the responses from suppliers.
I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for raising this issue. I remind the House that I have committed to meeting the all-party parliamentary group on prepayment meters, where I can keep Members updated on the issue as we move forward after today.
Edward Miliband
I thank the Minister for his reply, but it is simply not good enough. The story of this scandal is of a Government sitting on their hands and being far too slow to act. Ofgem did reviews in September and November and highlighted the problem—where were the Government? In early January, Citizens Advice reported that 3 million people have been disconnected by the back door. Even after that, he came to the House and refused an outright ban. Now we know the result of his inaction: 30,000 people have had warrants issued for the forced installation of prepayment meters in the past month alone, and 6,000 in the past week since he said no to a ban—thousands of people who are victims of Government negligence.
Let me ask the Minister some questions. First, how long will this pause, which has finally been put in place, last? Will he pledge that it will not be lifted until this discredited, rotten system is properly reformed? Secondly, he mentioned compensation as a result of remedial action for those adversely affected. Will he tell us how this compensation scheme will work? Thirdly, will he look at the case for energy companies having to supply a minimum amount of power to all customers, as in France, so that nobody is cut off—just like we do not cut off people’s water supply in this country? Fourthly, this crisis is happening against a backdrop of energy bills being due to rise 40% in just eight weeks’ time because the Government say there is nothing more they can do. This is the next looming scandal. Will he finally end the loopholes in the windfall tax, including billions being siphoned to fossil fuel companies, to stop bills rising?
Energy companies forcing their way into people’s homes, millions getting disconnected by the back door, no proper windfall tax on fossil fuel profits—this is Britain under the Tories. There is no one else to blame; it is long past time they got a grip.
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman asks how long the pause will last. That is up to Ofgem, as the regulator. It looked at this process before, as he rightly said, and it had assurances that have not proven to be accurate. Ofgem needs to ensure that the processes are properly observed, because it should be an absolute last resort that a prepayment meter is forcibly installed. He asks how compensation will be worked out. That is a matter for Ofgem. As is proper for the regulator, it stands between the Government, consumers and the suppliers in delivering that.
I have asked officials to look at providing a minimum amount of power, like France does. There are a lot of technical and other challenges to such a system. One of the benefits of having a prepayment meter is that it allows someone who is not engaging with their supplier and is running up debt to none the less have a supply continuing in their home. Having people cut off completely if they fail to manage that is not something we would want to see.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the position from April. I am proud that the energy price guarantee will continue after April, providing support for households right the way into 2024, and we have committed to consult on a new system to look after vulnerable consumers after that date.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the windfall tax and loopholes. We are investing in our energy security. While we are importers of oil and gas, as we will be under net zero all the way to 2050, the absurd position set out by the Leader of the Opposition is that Labour will oppose any new oil and gas licences, meaning that we pay billions to other countries to import it. There is no magic bullet to stop us using fossil fuels immediately. This Government have accelerated the move to renewables as fast as possible and will continue to do so, but it is absurd to have a policy under which we pay billions to countries abroad to produce oil and gas that we could produce at home to ever higher carbon standards.
Prepayment Meters
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart
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 families having prepayment meters forcibly installed in their homes by energy companies.
The Minister for Energy and Climate (Graham Stuart)
The Government recognise the importance of protecting customers, including those on a prepayment meter. That is why this weekend, the Secretary of State set out a five-point plan on prepayment meters. He wrote to energy suppliers to call on them to take every step to support consumers in difficulty. The Government want much greater effort from suppliers to help consumers in payment difficulty, including offers of additional credit, debt forgiveness and tools such as debt advice. Suppliers have been asked to commit to stop moving households to a prepayment meter wherever possible, and to reveal the number of warrants they have applied for in recent months, as part of a drive to increase transparency around prepayment meter installations.
There are reports that the courts are handling batches of applications for warrants, so the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working with Ofgem and the Ministry of Justice—I am pleased to have beside me the courts Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer)—to ensure that the process by which suppliers bring such cases to court is fair and transparent and supports vulnerable customers.
The Government have urged suppliers to take action to increase the number of vouchers being redeemed under the Government’s energy bills support scheme. We have published a list of supplier redemption rates, showing who is best meeting their responsibilities and those who need to do more.
The Secretary of State has written to Ofgem, asking it to do more to ensure that suppliers protect vulnerable consumers, including by revisiting its approach to the enforcement of supplier compliance and through the urgent publication of the outcomes of recent investigations into vulnerable customers. I will meet energy suppliers, Ofgem, Energy UK and Citizens Advice later this week to discuss these matters further. Those actions come on top of the Government’s unprecedented cost of living support, including the £400 discount under the energy bills support scheme and the energy price guarantee, which will save a typical household—on top of that £400—£900 this winter, with equivalent support in Northern Ireland.
Finally, we are considering a new approach to consumer protection. The Government will work with consumer groups and industry to consider the best approach, including options such as social tariffs, as part of wider retail market reforms.
Edward Miliband
I am glad that the Government have in the last few days finally woken up to the fact that we have a national scandal around prepayment meters. The question is whether their actions will stop the scandal; I fear the answer is no.
The Secretary of State could only say in his letter published yesterday that he
“would expect that the volume of…pre-payment meter installations and disconnecting households will start to subside over the coming months”.
The words “start to subside” are no comfort for the thousands more people who are facing bailiffs and being disconnected. Labour called for a ban on the forced installation of PPMs for at least the course of this winter to ensure that the Government, the companies and the regulator reform a broken system. Let us be clear that this is a broken system, with no proper criteria for what forced installation as a last resort means; no clear definition of the vulnerable; no proper clarity about the credit that should be offered to people on PPMs; no proper rules on debt repayment; and people on PPMs—the most vulnerable in our society—paying the most for their energy: a prepayment penalty.
Will the Minister answer three questions? First, would not the best thing he could do to prevent hardship this winter be to impose a temporary ban on the forced installation of prepayment meters? That is the way to protect thousands more who may fall into misery. Secondly, does he agree that, particularly in this cost of living crisis, it is quite wrong that those on prepayment meters are paying more for their energy, and will he take action to end that penalty? Thirdly, will he pledge to look at the system in other countries whereby nobody can forcibly be cut off—as we do with water in the UK—with a minimum amount of power supplied to all households?
Energy companies are forcing their way into people’s homes and millions are being disconnected by the back door. It is not enough for the Government to express regret, write letters and have meetings; only a ban will do.
Graham Stuart
We have today already seen a response from suppliers to the Government’s calls. We must look to be as effective as possible in effecting change now, and we believe that the Government’s calls on and engagement with suppliers, alongside that of Ofgem, is the right approach. Suppliers must exhaust—as they are required to do—all other alternatives before forcing the installation of a prepayment meter.
We, too, were once in opposition, so I understand the desire to come up with superficially popular policies, but we do not want to create a system where, in fact, more people are forced into debt, end up with bailiffs and are drawn into the court system. That is exactly what we wish to avoid. For many consumers, prepayment meters are a useful tool to allow them to manage their credit and ensure they do not get drawn into the court system in that way. [Interruption.]
If the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) were to stop chuntering even for a moment, she would hear my response to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who asked me about the penalty, as he put it, of higher costs. The standing charge is a fixed charge that covers the cost of live supply, and it is controlled by Ofgem. The system, which I think was in place when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, is that the cost should reflect the actual cost of providing the service. Ofgem manages that, but I agree with him that this is something we should look at. That is why we are going to look at social tariffs and why we want to look at whether those costs should be socialised. This is a long-standing situation that we are seeking to address. The whole energy supply system is under stress right now because of the energy crisis, and it is right that we make moves sensibly, without perverse outcomes, to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable.
On the question of not forcibly cutting people off, I am always open to looking at these issues, but of course a lot of people will manage the way they use heat and electricity, and it is somewhat different from water. We want to ensure that we get the balance right by protecting the most vulnerable and making sure that we have a system that builds on the unprecedented protection for consumers that we brought in this winter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the work of the COP26 President, and I am sorry he has been removed from the Government. Let me take this first opportunity at the Dispatch Box to congratulate the Minister on bringing down the last Government in the vote on fracking.
Before it fell, that Government pledged to end the onshore wind ban in England, changing the planning rules to bring consent for onshore wind
“in line with other infrastructure.”
But the new Prime Minister spent the summer campaigning for an onshore wind ban because of the “distress and disruption” he says it causes. So can the Minister tell us: is the Government’s policy to change the planning rules as promised by the last Government, or to keep the ban on onshore wind as promised by the new Prime Minister?
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am delighted that, as has been announced today, the Prime Minister is going to be leading our delegation to the COP. We are working to ensure the speedy take-up of a whole range of technologies across the piece to ensure that we can deliver the net zero targets and stay on track.
Edward Miliband
It is a mad world when the new Government make the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) look like an eco-warrior, and he was in favour of lifting the ban. This is just one example of their failure. We are way off track from meeting our climate targets, the net zero strategy was ruled unlawful, the PM sacks the COP President and all this when the UN is telling us we are heading for 2.8 °C of global warming. Is not the truth that this year began with a Prime Minister who made grand promises that have not been fulfilled, and it ends with one who has to be dragged kicking and screaming even to turn up?
Graham Stuart
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government of which he was part had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the Conservative party to pass the Climate Change Act 2008 in the first place. Since he left office, this country has moved from renewables accounting for less than 7% of electricity to more than 40%, and seen the transformation of the energy efficiency of our housing stock. This Prime Minister will not only lead us at COP, but take us forward. We are on track to meet our net zero targets, and we will meet our carbon budgets. The Conservative party, and this Government, have a track record of action rather than rhetoric—although I have to admit the right hon. Gentleman is increasingly good at that.
Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stuart
I will not give way. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is getting over-excited. He has described himself as a nerd—accurately, of course. Perhaps he should have spent more time looking at parliamentary procedure.
I am proud to say that this Government have led the way in reducing emissions and moving towards net zero. When the right hon. Gentleman left power in 2010, not only was there that note that said there was no money left, but less than 7% of our electricity—around 6.8%—came from renewables. It is the Conservative party that has delivered the green revolution and will continue to do so. That means that more than 40%—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, are they allowed to maintain this ridiculous stunt? It is bad enough—
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are investing. Near both our constituencies, we have seen the transformation—
Graham Stuart
May I at least answer this without being permanently harassed by the right hon. Gentleman, who should learn to sit? My hon. Friend has seen the transformation of the whole economics of offshore wind. He has seen this Government put in place the contracts for difference, which are being copied all around the world.
Graham Stuart
I feel as though if I do not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, he may suffer some serious medical emergency.
Edward Miliband
For the guidance of the House, the Minister said something very important from the Dispatch Box: he said that this is not a confidence motion. I think Conservative Members want to know, because if he confirms that statement, they can vote for our motion in the safe knowledge that they can be confident in the current Prime Minister. Will he confirm that?
Climate Change and Flooding
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband
When we were in government, I played one part in the rather unhappy saga that is Heathrow. In response to the demand that we should approve Heathrow, I pushed for a separate target for aviation emissions. Of course that must also be looked at as part of the 1.5° target. There cannot simply be unconstrained expansion of aviation. The hon. Lady makes a good point.
Secondly, the agreement contains not just the 1.5° aim but a long-term goal of zero emissions. When I asked the Secretary of State about this yesterday, she said that she was happy pursuing the existing targets in the Climate Change Act. I think that those targets are very important, because I helped legislate for them, and I am very happy that she wants to make sure that we meet them. However, when I was Climate Change Secretary we had not had a global agreement for net zero emissions. We cannot possibly say, “We’ve got this global commitment to zero emissions in the second half of the century but it has no implications for UK domestic policy.” Of course we have to look at what it means for the UK.
My case to the Secretary of State, which I hope she will consider—I am not asking for an answer today—is that when the Energy Bill comes back to this House in the new year she amends it to ask the Committee on Climate Change to do something very simple, which is to look at this issue and make a recommendation to Government about when we should achieve zero emissions. That would do a number of things. It would send a cross-party message that Britain is determined to be a climate leader; the Secretary of State has talked eloquently about the impact that the Climate Change Act had, with cross-party support. It would also reduce, not increase, the costs of transition, because it would provide a clear trajectory to business and, indeed, to future Governments.
I say to Conservative Members, who have understandable concerns, that it would be supported by business. I am not the most radical person on this issue. The most radical people are, believe it or not, Richard Branson, Paul Polman of Unilever and Ratan Tata. They want not just what I am suggesting, but something much more radical—they want zero emissions by 2050. Perhaps that is what the Committee on Climate Change will concede, but my approach is much more pragmatic, as is that of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). Let us not pluck a figure out of the air—such as 2050—without having the experts look at it; let us look at what the implications of the global goal of zero emissions are for the UK. That is a very reasonable suggestion.
Graham Stuart
I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has just said about aiming for zero carbon. Does not the involvement of Unilever, Virgin and other businesses show that, if leadership and certainty is given, the investment conditions will be such that we will be able to get the money flowing, as I said in my speech, and jobs will be created here? If we lag behind with uncertainty, we will not have those jobs, and pioneering businesses will not establish themselves, invest or provide jobs here. If we are going to do it, it must benefit this country to the greatest extent possible.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point. Every extra ounce of uncertainty raises the cost of capital. He and I have discussed that many times and that is what business people are saying, because they want that certainty. They are asking, “What are we working towards?” That is why all those leading businesses are putting it forward.
I do not want to say to the Secretary of State that this is easy, because it is a long way off, but it is an easy win for her. She would go down in history as the person who helped legislate for zero emissions, which is the ultimate backstop. When I was Secretary of State, the ultimate backstop was 80% reductions. Now we know from the global agreement that the ultimate backstop must be zero emissions at some point.
Paris Climate Change Conference
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). He spoke with huge eloquence, and I do not propose to compete with him on the papal encyclical. I have read it, but he informed the House about it brilliantly. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this incredibly important debate.
I will not spend time talking about the important encyclical because I want to mention what I believe we need out of the Paris summit, what we are likely to get out of it, and what should happen after it. Before I do so, it might be helpful—particularly for the Secretary of State, who is in her place—if I shared briefly a reflection on the Copenhagen summit of six years ago that I took part in, and I will offer one tip in particular.
I wish to relate an experience that was told by my lead official, the brilliant Pete Betts, who I believe still works with the Secretary of State. In the dying hours of the conference he rang me—I had not slept for 36 hours and was about to go to bed—to say that the deal was about to collapse. That was obviously a global problem, but it was also a particular problem for me because it followed a period when world leaders, including Gordon Brown, had come to town and made a heroic effort to salvage something from the wreckage of Copenhagen. Gordon had departed with the immortal words to me, “Make sure it doesn’t go wrong now”, and I had foolishly said, “I’m sure it’s all going to be fine, Gordon. Don’t worry about it.” When Pete rang me to say that the deal was about to collapse, part of me was obviously thinking about the world and the future of the planet, but I was also thinking, “What will Gordon say when I tell him the whole thing has collapsed?” I suggest to the Secretary of State that lowering prime ministerial expectations when the current Prime Minister leaves the summit—as I think he is due to do—is probably a good idea.
Let me return to the process of the Paris summit. We need an agreement that is as close as possible to what the science tells us is necessary. We should all be worried about what the science is telling us, because compared with six years ago it is even clearer. A good assessment produced by the Met Office earlier this month stated that 2015 is set to be the hottest year on record—yet another record. Some of that may be related to El Niño, but all the experts tell us that the underlying warming is a result of human-induced climate change. We are now at 1 °C of warming, which is half way to 2 °C. Importantly, global warming is not some theoretical idea—sometimes we speak as though it is—because it is happening now and the changes are already being witnessed.
Another study produced by the US Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this month found, among other things, that devastating floods in Indonesia in 2014, the 2013 Argentine heatwave, and tropical cyclones in Hawaii were all linked to human-induced climate change. The science is clear, dangerous, and should make us deeply concerned: climate change is real and it is happening now.
That takes me to what we are likely to get out of Paris, as opposed to what we need. I believe that we will get a 2° commitment, as at Copenhagen, but I am afraid not a 2° deal—the Secretary of State has acknowledged that. The UN says that on the best case scenario for Paris, current commitments made by countries for 2030 mean that we will be half way between “business as usual” emissions—that means no action—and where we should be to have a fighting chance of a 2° deal. As the UN has made clear, on the basis of submitted plans, we are heading for something like a 3° deal.
If the world ends up in 2100 with 3 °C warming, that would be catastrophic. It would mean temperatures that are higher than at any time in the last 3 million years, with dramatic effects of intense heatwaves, flooding, and millions—or hundreds of millions—of climate refugees. Does that mean that we should dismiss the likely Paris agreement? In my view, we should not. If the Secretary of State, her colleagues, and world leaders pull off an agreement in Paris, new ground will have been broken. It will be the first agreement to get anywhere even in the vague neighbourhood of 2°, the first to oblige all major emitters to take action to reduce emissions, and the first—we hope—comprehensively to stand up $100 billion of climate finance for mitigation and adaptation for the developing world. Those would be signal achievements—behind the science but ahead of where we have been.
However, just as we should not dismiss that progress, we should also be clear about what a dangerous position we will be in. If that is the agreement, the judgment on Paris will be that it has been a success, but that it can only be a staging post. Importantly, just as what happened after Copenhagen perhaps made it seem less of a disaster than it seemed at the time, what happens after Paris will determine whether the summit has turned out to be a decisive moment.
Since the ambition will be insufficient at Paris, our focus should be on raising that ambition afterwards. I think of that in two parts: ambition before 2030, and ambition after. Before 2030—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned this—we need a ratchet mechanism to ensure that the Paris agreement is the beginning of what is required. That must mean a tough, five-year review mechanism, so that countries renew and improve their pledges. My colleague in another place, Baroness Worthington, said that the agreement might ultimately come to be seen as a global equivalent of our five-year carbon budgets, and that is the right way to think about it. The hope—I think it is not a forlorn hope—must be that as technology develops and as confidence is built, countries will move further and faster.
Graham Stuart
I agree with most of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman. Providing certainty, and ratcheting and tightening up a deal in Paris over time, send a signal to the investment market. That means that we will get investment in innovation, research and development and the supply chain, which is a prerequisite of driving down costs. Only by that level of commitment will we get the acceleration of a cost curve downwards, which is the way that we will deliver for the planet while also protecting the consumer. That is why we need certainty and those kinds of framework.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman’s point is important and well made, and it takes me to what I was about to say. This is not just about hoping that we can make that kind of progress with technology and so on; by setting the right framework we make it more likely that such progress will be made, and that the constructive, imaginative and inventive side of humankind will defeat our destructive side.
Edward Miliband
I think that the FCO and every Department must be concerned with these matters, and I am sure that the Secretary of State, who is a champion on these issues, will argue for that. I know from my experience that that sometimes feels a bit lonely in government, but in our case we had support across the Government from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.
In response to the point from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), ensuring progress means that we must keep on track here at home. Next Thursday there is an important moment when the Energy and Climate Change Committee publishes its recommendations for the fifth carbon budget, and I hope the Government will support that.
Let me move on to the period after 2030. Every excess tonne of carbon that we emit between now and 2030 means that we will have to do more later—we must be clear about that. The easiest way to think about it is that we have a finite carbon budget, which has been helpfully estimated by the UN to be about 1,000 gigatonnes—a round number. Once that is used up, we can emit no more if we are to avoid dangerous warming. Frighteningly, the UN tells us that on current pledges to 2030, 75% of that total carbon budget will be used up by 2030. That suggests the scale of the task facing us, particularly if we do not improve the pledges between now and 2030. The crucial point, whether we do that or not, is that the world will at some point have to reach zero emissions. I commend the Government and the Secretary of State for signing up to the G7 pledge, made recently, that the world will have to get to zero emissions sometime in the second half of this century.
It is striking that increasing numbers of business leaders—this again relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness—are putting their energies and thinking into the so-called net zero commitment. Ratan Tata, Paul Polman of Unilever, Richard Branson of Virgin and many others from the so-called B-team of business leaders, recently sent a letter to all those attending Paris calling for the adoption of the long-term goal of zero emissions. They are right: the long-term goal is an essential part of a successful Paris agreement.
What does zero emissions mean? It means a 100% clean energy system. It means the right decisions about infrastructure. It also means—this is where the inventers and engineers will be incredibly important—technological advance on how to capture carbon, reforestation and a whole range of other matters. Increasingly, the question of when and how we get to zero emissions will become our focus and energy after Paris. It will need to become the benchmark for the decisions we make in the years ahead.
Finally, we will also have to continue to work on the all-important question of a fair and equitable approach. The reality that all of us in the House have to face is that industrialised countries have grown in a high carbon way and we are now saying to poorer countries that they have to grow in a low carbon way. That is an unprecedented challenge of equity. It makes it all the more important that rich countries cut their emissions to allow space for poorer countries to develop. It also means, and I commend the Government for this, that it is right to be leading on development aid around climate change. That will enable countries to leapfrog the high carbon path and go to a low carbon path.
Those are the ways in which I think Paris must lay the ground for future ambition, and a future ambition that is fairly shared.
Graham Stuart
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have to ensure there is engagement and understanding on this issue in Parliaments across the world? That is why today’s debate, and others like it, are so important. I refer the House to my declaration of interests. I will be chairing a GLOBE International two-day conference at the Assemblée Nationale on 4 and 5 December. About 250 legislators from around the world will be talking about the role of national Parliaments in setting the law, scrutinising government and making sure that international promises are turned into domestic reality.
Edward Miliband
Let me take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the role he plays in GLOBE International, which is an incredibly important organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has also played a very important role in that organisation. By bringing legislators together, it plays a crucial role in building support for tackling climate change.
I want to end by making two observations. My first observation is about the process of what we might call summitry. Many people thought Copenhagen was a failure—I referred to it at the beginning of my speech—and that it did not achieve what we wanted. It certainly did not meet people’s expectations. The reality, however, is that it laid the groundwork for some of what we are seeing in Paris: a 2° commitment, the $100 billion of climate finance and the whole notion of bottom-up pledges.
Trying to get countries to sign up to these issues is such a knotty problem that we will not get all the way the first, second or even third time. We just have to move things forward and make progress. The negotiations in Paris look like an elite-level exercise and people will often ask what the point is of all those leaders gathering together. I believe, however, that it is a forcing mechanism. I do not think we would have seen the progress from a lot of countries around the world if there had not been a moment when countries came together. World leaders know they will be judged on whether they are doing something or just ignoring the problem. We will not get everything we want from Paris, but that does not mean we should be discouraged. In fact, we should redouble our efforts at home and around the world.
Public Confidence in the Media and Police
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband
I agree completely with the hon. Lady’s comments. As the Prime Minister said in his speech, there are issues here for the press, the police and, indeed, politicians.
This debate goes to the heart of the country we should aspire to be. It goes to the integrity, responsibility and accountability of some of our established institutions. At the heart of the debate is the issue of how these institutions and the people who head them act. Can the press be trusted, in the words of the Press Complaints Commission’s first chairman, Lord McGregor, not to dabble
“their fingers in the stuff of other people’s souls”?
Can the police be trusted to investigate wrongdoing without fear or favour? Can we, as politicians be trusted—as I have said and as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has just said—to speak out when wrong is done?
For the Dowler family, let us be honest, until just two weeks ago the answer to all those questions was no—and the fact that it was should shame our country. So when I read in the newspapers that this is the angst or obsession of a few people in Westminster, I say that it is not, because it goes to the kind of country we are.
It also goes directly to something else that we on both sides of the House hear and talk about a lot: the responsibilities of those without power in Britain, such as those on benefits. We all use words such as “cheats” and “abusers” and we saw that language in the News of the World; some of it is even true in respect of a minority, but how much—let us be honest about this—do we talk about the responsibilities of the powerful? What message does it send to the rest of our society when the established institutions of our country behave without responsibility? It sends the message that anything goes because no one seems to care about right and wrong.
This debate goes to one more, final issue: just as the expenses issue undermined the reputation of the good, decent majority on both sides of the House, so too this scandal affects the vast majority of good, upstanding police officers on whom all our communities rely and affects the vast majority of decent journalists who are doing their job and are, as the Prime Minister said, necessary for a free and fair society. It is also in their interests that we sort this out.
When people say that this does not matter they are not just saying, “Let’s talk about something else”, but something far more serious. That cynicism about the country we live in is almost inevitable—that nothing can be done. I say to Members on both sides of the House. and I am sure that I speak for Members across the House when I say it, that if we fall prey to that, nobody will trust established institutions in this country—or, indeed, anyone else.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Labour party’s director of communications, Tom Baldwin, is accused of having been involved in the unlawful accessing of banking records to establish details of payments made. May I ask the Leader of the Opposition, who himself aspires to lead this country, what checks he made and what assurances were given to him about Mr Baldwin’s conduct before he appointed Mr Baldwin to that high office?
Edward Miliband
I take all allegations against members of my staff seriously, which is why I checked these out with The Times newspaper, which specifically confirms what the gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) refers said, which is that he did not commission illegal investigations into Michael Ashcroft. [Interruption.] I have to say to the Prime Minister, who is chuntering from the Front Bench, that we should rely on some of those people because Tom Baldwin’s line manager was the current Education Secretary for much of the time in question. He is not in his place today, but for much of the time that the investigation was going on into Lord Ashcroft—remember him?—Tom Baldwin’s line manager was the current Education Secretary. I see the Prime Minister is smiling. This issue has been raised a number of times and I have to say to hon. Members, “Remember Lord Ashcroft and his assurances. Remember his assurances about his tax status, which were relied on by the current Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister.” I have to say to Conservative Members that if I were them, I would shut up about the allegations regarding Lord Ashcroft.
Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband
I am not going to give way.
We have to address all the issues that we face for the future. On the relationship between the press and politicians, let me be clear. There is nothing wrong with politicians engaging with the media, and Members across all parts of the House will continue to do so. What matters is not whether those relationships exist but whether they stifle either the ability of the press to speak out against political leaders or the ability of political leaders to speak up.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Edward Miliband
I am not going to give way. [Interruption.] We have very little time for the debate and many hon. Members want to speak. I want to give them proper time to speak.
As I was saying, this is about whether those relationships are conducted in a transparent way. That is why all Members of the House—I hope that this answers hon. Members’ questions—should be available to appear before Lord Leveson’s inquiry. On cross-media ownership, the inquiry will need to think long and hard about the dangers of the excessive concentration of power in too few hands. Most importantly, we must protect people from the culture that allowed all those events to happen.
Lastly, there is a difficult issue for the House: the painful truth is that all of us have, for far too long, been in thrall to some sections of the media, including News International. For too long, when these things happened we just shrugged our shoulders and said, “That’s the way it is,”—but no longer. The events of the past seven days have opened all our eyes and given us the chance to say, “It doesn’t have to be like this.”
I want, before I finish, to pay tribute to the people who made this possible, and to Back Benchers across the House for their courage in speaking out. I pay tribute particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) for their tireless and brave work on these issues. I pay tribute to Members on the Government side, such as the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who spoke out about BSkyB in last week’s emergency debate, and to the Select Committees and their Chairs on both sides of the House. I also want to pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the seriousness with which you have taken Parliament’s role on this issue.
This is a victory for Parliament. This House has been criticised in recent years for being timid, irrelevant and out of touch. Today Parliament has shown an ability to speak out without fear or favour, to speak to our great traditions, and to show that we can hold power to account and that nobody is above the law. To paraphrase the late Lord Denning, be ye ever so high, the people are above you. This House—all Members and all parties—have given voice to the people and have said to Rupert Murdoch, “Abandon your bid.” The country wanted this: it wanted its voice to be heard, and today it has been heard.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
Debate between Edward Miliband and Graham Stuart(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very important in all our public pronouncements to be careful about what we say. As the Prime Minister said, in principle it must be for the Libyan people to determine the shape of their future.
Military action by the coalition can be accompanied by a wide range of non-military measures to continue the pressure on the Libyan regime. Security Council resolution 1973, as well as resolution 1970, sets out all the measures that can be taken, including cutting off access to money, trade, weapons and international legitimacy for Colonel Gaddafi. And we need to remind Libyan leaders and commanders that they will be brought to justice for any crimes they commit against their people.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition who, like the Prime Minister, is giving a powerful and thoughtful speech. He spoke about the duty to protect, and looking to liberal interventionism as a possible breakthrough watershed in global politics. Does he believe that it requires UN resolutions in future for countries, including our own, to be involved in implementing a duty to protect?
Edward Miliband
In the end, we have to look at that on a case-by-case basis, and the responsibility to protect looks at that issue, but clearly the hon. Gentleman is right to say that international consent is incredibly important for any mission that we undertake.