South-west Growth Charter

James Heappey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) on securing this important debate.

There are six networks that drive productivity, not only in our region but nationally, and they are the air, road, rail, broadband, mobile and energy networks. I am afraid that in the south-west there is under-investment in them all. Bristol airport, which serves the region, has been growing at a great pace in recent years, but we need to ensure that it is better connected southwards so that is can serve the region that it is intended to serve.

Road improvements are coming along nicely, but the work on the A303 and the A358 needs to happen with some urgency. We must also be aware that, as we do that work, we risk making Somerset the rock in the stream, around which the M4 and M5 to our north and west, and the A303 and A358 to our south, move quickly while Somerset remains disconnected.

I encourage the Minister to support the work of my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Ben Howlett) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who are campaigning for better access to north-east Somerset from the M4 to improve connectivity in the north-east of the region, and the ongoing work to support Hinkley Point by improving junction 23 of the M5 to allow better connectivity not only to Hinkley Point but into Mendip. We must ensure that, as we improve the main roads in our region, we do not simply make Somerset the unconnected rock in the stream around which everything moves quickly.

Yesterday, our region was once again cut off. The railway line between Bristol and Taunton was under water, causing huge disruption, not only for Members of Parliament returning to the House after the weekend but for the region as a whole, which feels awfully remote when water is on the tracks and nobody can get to us. It was Dawlish before; yesterday, it was the line through Somerset.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) is leading a debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon on the electrification of the great western railway to Bristol Temple Meads, so I shall not go into that now, other than to say that it is of course not just the electrification of those last eight miles between Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads that affects our region so much. Electrification is required in the Thames valley to release the rolling stock that is supposed to come from the Thames valley to serve the Bristol and Bath commuter network, which will in turn release the rolling stock that is supposed to go down to Devon and Cornwall to serve the Plymouth and Exeter networks. The delay to electrification has a real effect, not only in the west country but in the Thames valley. It is needed to increase capacity for commuters in our region. Most of all, it is a shame that the electrification of the great western railway, which we as a region thought was in the bag, now finds itself in competition with the excellent work of the Peninsula Rail Task Force.

On broadband and mobile, I absolutely agree with the growth charter that says that we must go for 90% connectivity by fibre for premises and that we should go for 5G. Let us not forget, though, that right now more than 10% of Devon and Somerset do not have access to a superfast connection at all, and much of the region has connection speeds that are down around 2 Mbps or less. Our mobile phone connectivity is improving, but there are still far too many notspots, so there is work to be done before we embark on the more ambitious targets for the future.

We are a decentralised region with no obvious economic focal point, so it follows that there is no obvious focus for energy generation. I think that, as a region, we are the nation’s leader in the deployment of renewables, but we require real investment in our distribution and transmission systems to support that sort of energy system. The Minister should take note that there is also an opportunity for renewable energy, clean tech and new nuclear to be part of the industrial strategy for the south-west.

The south-west has a great deal to offer, with great universities, including the University of Bristol, the University of the West of England, the University of Bath and Bath Spa University, and great expertise, ambition and potential. We just need to be better connected by air, road, rail, fibre, mobile and electricity wire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. It is absolutely clear that the economic failure of the previous Government to recognise the importance of counter-cyclical state investment has been rejected—in words at least—by the current Government. We will see tomorrow whether that rejection is made solid.

The previous Government’s abolition of the regional development agencies, which supported growth outside London, exacerbated the problem. Growth in the regions of the UK, particularly the south-west, faced economic hardship from austerity, particularly in the way in which it drained demand and reduced income for those in the public and private sectors. The Government have an opportunity to address those failings. I understand the sense of disappointment expressed by many MPs about the current indications that the local LEP will be materially disadvantaged in terms of regional funding because it does not have an elected mayor model. Now is the time for the Government to show they recognise that regions can achieve greatly without necessarily having a big man, a mayor, to meet the Government’s requirements.

The need for the charter is urgent. The south-west received €1.5 billion from the European structural funds throughout the 2014 to 2020 funding cycle and that stimulates development in the region. In fact, the south-west received the second highest amount of money from the European Union, second only to nearby Wales. Business in the area must be concerned about the Government’s toxic combination of indecision, doubt and confusion about Brexit. A commitment to a growth charter would be the first step in providing some answers for companies in the south-west.

Investment in physical infrastructure is one of the very important points in the charter. I must say I admire and respect the south-western Members of Parliament for making it to Parliament today, given the extraordinary lengths that some had to go to to make the journey from the south-west. For proper investment, we need long-term patient funding rather than the current short-term free market approach. For example, as has been mentioned, the A303, A30 and A358 corridor between Taunton, Honiton and Amesbury is key to reducing journey times to markets, promoting the inward investment that will help make the south-west’s economy more self-sustaining, as well as strengthening the already vibrant tourism in the area.

As hon. Members have said, rail links are equally important. The 20-year plan will bring jobs and growth to the region, as well as faster connections to the London airports. Businesses in the south-west should have better access to Bristol, London and the midlands, as well as to Heathrow and Gatwick. Rail links are key not just to link the south-west to other English economic hubs, but to support British industry and manufacturing. This investment should be brought forward and considered a priority. How will the Minister ensure that the Infrastructure Commission is independent and fully funded to make the much needed investment in our regional infrastructure?

However, physical infrastructure is not the whole story. As Member after Member has pointed out, in the face of the fourth industrial revolution, digital connectivity is just as important, so the plan for an ultra-fast south-west is welcome. The Labour Government left office with fully costed plans for universal broadband by 2012. As has been said today, we still have many businesses and individuals who cannot even get access to broadband speeds of 2 megabits, never mind the ultra-high speed mentioned in the announcements made today; and the universal service obligation is still four years away.

The European Union investment that was so welcome in Cornwall will not be available post-Brexit, and yet Ofcom researchers showed that in rural areas 48% of premises are unable to receive speeds above 10 megabits. I look forward to the Minister saying specifically how his Government will invest in rural broadband.

[James Heappey]

The shadow Minister is obviously aware of the speech delivered by the then Prime Minister and Chancellor in January last year setting out the long-term economic plan for our region. Her speech today has reflected that Conservative vision for our region. Should we assume she supports it?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I support regional economies that are strong and sustainable, where investment is in people, skills and infrastructure. I support economies that deliver high-quality jobs that enable his constituents to make plans for their own futures, rather than being at the whim of short-term, zero-hour, low-skill, low-value jobs. That is the vision for the future economy of the south-west, and indeed for the country, that I wholeheartedly support.

I look forward to the Minister setting out exactly what his industrial strategy is. The Prime Minister has created a Department with industrial strategy in its title—I have yet to hear what the strategy is. The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday did not set out how the Government will, for example crowd in investment from the private sector in innovation, new opportunities and skills. As a Member of Parliament for the north-east, I too regret the skills brain drain from our regions to the capital because of its stronger economy.

I particularly look forward to the Minister setting out how the Government’s industrial strategy is not simply an ever-growing reduction in corporation tax but one that takes our whole country with it to invest in increased industry, shifting the centre of gravity away from London to support our great regions, such as the south-west. The south-west growth charter is to be welcomed. I look forward to the Minister demonstrating that he will support its implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

As my hon. Friend understands, I am not the Minister for Culture, Media and Support. He also knows that when I was Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I took an active interest in that issue, and we commissioned a very reputable report from a group of academics and industry experts, which found, among other things, that BT Openreach was under-investing in its network by hundreds of millions of pounds a year. It was accretive to investors and was not down to its cost of capital. I do not want to speculate on the reasons for that, but its effect has been massively to penalise people—particularly those in rural areas. I am sure my hon. Friend supports today’s announcement of a new fund to support other players in fibre through balance sheet-matched funding, which will enable fibre roll-out, particularly in rural and suburban areas, to proceed much faster than hitherto. That is a very welcome development.

[James Heappey]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way, and I am grateful. The long-term economic plan, to which I referred during the shadow Minister’s speech, was delivered 18 months or so ago. In its analysis of the region’s infrastructure and our sectoral opportunities, it is not a thousand miles away from an industrial strategy. Will the Minister commit to making that long-term economic plan, which was delivered by the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor, the foundation for his industrial strategy for our region? Our region widely welcomed it at the ballot box.

[Jesse Norman]

The idea is not to slow the process of investment—as has been recognised today, there has been considerable investment across the south-west, in the form of city deals, enterprise zones, expansions and local growth funding—but to incorporate it within a more nuanced national consensus about what the future will look like, out of which we should get a shared view of how the south-west and other parts of the economy can grow.

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the Prime Minister’s early words: she pointed out that there are no privileged areas of the country. Some might have had deals in the past, on the basis of areas coming together, but that model can be embraced by everyone. One of the interesting things about this debate is that the unity of Members of Parliament is so evident, but it is not absolutely evident that that unity is shared all the way down the tree of local government. It might be worth reflecting on whether that might have an impact on the region’s long-term development.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Heappey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The Government have a rigorous assessment process for local content. Most recently, the Hinkley Point C station was subject to provisions for more than 60% local content. If the hon. Lady knows of any instances in which the Government are not following up on this, she is welcome to write to the Department.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the west coast main line, may I ask about parts of the Great Western railway that have similarly been deferred this morning, which is not great news for our region? As the Secretary of State develops an industrial strategy for the south-west, will he agree to meet MPs from that region and perhaps support us in changing the mind of the Department for Transport?

[Jesse Norman]

I cannot speak for the Secretary of State, but the hon. Gentleman will know that several of the LEPs are my responsibility. I meet them regularly, and will continue to champion their interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I have not seen the report. I will have to consider it and I will then, of course, write to the right hon. Gentleman with my reaction to it.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

I commend to the Secretary of State and his team the final report of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, and particularly our recommendations on energy storage and demand-side management. I encourage my right hon. Friend to enact some of those recommendations, so that we can upgrade our energy system.

Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2016

James Heappey Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful for that clarification and am happy to look at the facts of the case. I make a wider point that relations between the two Governments on this issue have traditionally been very close.

As I said, we recognise the impact of the change on companies that have invested in projects under development in good faith and therefore the Government will introduce amending legislation to the House, as soon as is practicable, to reduce the 20% power threshold to 10% for a transitional period, to be applied to all plant that has qualified for the scheme since 1 August 2016.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

I agree very much that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that subsidy is in the taxpayers’ interest, and they are right to insist on a certain level of efficiency. I welcome the change that the Minister has just announced, but the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s report on investor confidence, already mentioned once, emphasised that it is important that we move away from any sort of retrospective changes. Now that energy policy is within business policy, can the Minister reassure us that this is a new beginning for energy policy?

[Jesse Norman]

I absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I simply direct him to the recent announcements on Hinkley, on offshore wind and on the contracts for difference that will shortly be coming forward. Funding for the renewable heat incentive is due to rise from £430 million in 2015-16 to £1.15 billion in 2020-21. Those are hardly the signs of a Government who do not take these issues seriously or are unwilling to make plans on the lengths of time suitable for investment or licence.

I want to pick up the point, en passant, raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West. He is a classical liberal and made a wonderful intervention on the importance of avoiding subsidies. I remind him that any classic liberal of a modern slant would recognise two things: first, that markets can perform not very effectively or efficiently—in some cases in the environment area, pollution is a classic externality generated by market behaviour—and secondly, that markets are instruments of public policy, so it is perfectly proper for a Government on behalf of the public interest more generally to seek to blend objectives in how they treat markets.

Fourth Industrial Revolution

James Heappey Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

It is impossible to be from Inverclyde and not to reference the lessons of history when talking about how we can best implement new technologies in our economy. I hope other Members will forgive me for indulging in a short history lesson, but without Greenock-born James Watt we would not be talking about a first industrial revolution, never mind a fourth.

Many Members will be aware that Inverclyde was once a world leader in technological innovation. For hundreds of years we led the way in shipbuilding innovation, with ships such as the Port Glasgow-built PS Comet, which operated the first commercially successful steamboat service in Europe. That technological innovation created thousands of jobs and led to a massive increase in manufacturing production.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries Inverclyde’s shipyards remained world-leading innovators, building the advanced warships of the day and the most cost-effective merchant vessels, which expanded our influence in the world. It was an imperfect industry, but people could take pride in their work, and we can declare without hesitation that this was an integral part of Scotland’s story as a nation.

In the 1980s the UK Government withdrew public funding for shipbuilding. The subsequent collapse of the industry meant that, by 1986, Greenock and Port Glasgow’s male unemployment rate had risen to 26%. The UK Government told us the private sector would create jobs where publicly supported industries had failed. I will concede they were partially correct about that—a McDonald’s restaurant is now situated where the walls of the Scott Lithgow shipyard once stood.

In 1988 Margaret Thatcher visited Greenock’s IBM plant to highlight how we would transition to new industries and lead the way in an electronics revolution. However, the revolution has been short-lived, and IBM will permanently end its involvement with the Spango Valley site in Greenock later this month. The first three industrial revolutions brought success to Inverclyde, yet they ultimately ended with periods of rapid decline. These eras created wealth for factory owners and multinational technology companies, but too often the workers were left to pick up the pieces when these industries ended. As a result, Inverclyde now suffers from a high rate of depopulation, and the remaining local businesses and public services are struggling to survive under the long shadow of those historical failures.

The point of that history lesson is this: Inverclyde shows us that technological innovation will never reach its full potential if it lacks a social conscience. The motion before us states that

“the UK is a in a strong economic position to take advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

In my constituency, we have not yet resolved the issues arising from the decline of the previous technological ages. Undoubtedly the fourth industrial revolution can be part of the solution, as long as constituencies such as mine receive adequate levels of support; otherwise, this innovation will only reinforce inequality as the more developed parts of the economy continue to benefit the most from rapid technological advances. The UK Government have an obligation to offer more assistance to Inverclyde, given their catastrophic failures of the past. The Government took extraordinary measures to destroy industry in Inverclyde; I would now like them to take extraordinary measures to help us take advantage of the fourth industrial revolution.

Renewable energy will be a major component of Scotland’s future technological innovation. Inverclyde would be well placed to take advantage of these developments. Inverclyde is one of the few areas with the geography to utilise nearly all forms of renewable energy. We have a coastline and can therefore contribute to tidal power, and we have enough rural space and hills to facilitate wind farms. The burns that run off those hills can power hydro schemes, as they did in the past, and while solar will never fulfil all our requirements, it could be a valuable contributor. Further, we are already a producer of biomass fuels, and wood chips produced in Inverclyde are being used all over Scotland. Inverclyde has a large amount of unused industrial land, and these sites could be centres of manufacturing once again, while our port facilities mean that we are able easily to export the completed products to their required destinations. Every renewables business that we establish would result in associated benefits for suppliers and other local businesses.

While I welcome the UK Government’s decision to bring industry strategy back on to the policy-making agenda, I fear they will not prioritise the needs of constituencies such as Inverclyde. Where the UK Government do have power, we are witnessing a lack of vision. Renewables could transform Inverclyde, yet policy decisions made here in London are stifling the industry’s potential. The UK Government have shown a complete lack of foresight in withdrawing much of the financial support that was available for the renewables sector, so not only are the UK Government the chief architect of a social and economic disaster in the west of Scotland, but they are actively damaging industries that could make the area vibrant once again. The fourth industrial revolution promises us so much—“smart” manufacturing, increasingly integrated technologies, and even white goods and household appliances that connect to the internet—but what my constituents are really asking for is employment: not low-level, poorly paid jobs, but skilled, high-value employment that will boost other businesses and educational institutions in the area.

The industrial revolution failed to lift the landed poor out of poverty. It created vast amounts of wealth, but increasingly that wealth is being accumulated in a smaller and smaller section of society. I want the UK Government to demonstrate two things: first, how they plan on driving forward the fourth industrial revolution; and secondly, how this technology will be used to benefit the social and economic situation of everyone in society. With an astute eye for the future, the fourth industrial revolution could lead to a period of unrivalled prosperity for this country, but without the Government’s stewardship, these new technologies will only reinforce social, gender and regional inequalities.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber yesterday afternoon when I spoke in the climate change debate, so I thought I would inform him that through employing some of these new technologies, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London has been able to install in a hospital a combined heat and power system that saves it £2 million a year on its operating costs. It has done that not through Government promotion but because the technology is there and it has sought to adopt it, and it is doing immediate good for that public service.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I have wonderful examples of the same thing in my own constituency. Biomass fuel heating is a fantastic innovation if used properly. At the same time, the Government are reducing tariffs on various sorts of wind energy and solar power. It is part of the whole mix if we are going to get this right.

I want to see a fairer and more prosperous society that has employment and opportunities for our young people. Without this sense of progress and social justice, technological advancement will only work against those that need the most assistance. It is time for the UK Government to show how their industrial strategy will benefit working people—and if they are unwilling to do so, transfer the powers to Scotland and let us get on with the job.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

Speaking twice in 25 hours is a record for me, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak), who has secured a worthwhile debate and opened it brilliantly. I apologise for being late, but I was working on the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s paper on renewable heat and transport targets, which will be released this evening. I commend it to the House: it is probably one of the most insightful Select Committee reports that Members will read all year. Indeed, all of our Committee’s reports are insightful.

In summing up yesterday’s debate, the Minister used some fantastic theatrical references, which I hope will become a tradition of his summing-up speeches. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the theatre, so we look forward to that. Today, I present, to use my own theatrical reference, the second part of my play in two parts, in which I will talk about the energy opportunities provided by the collision of emerging technologies and our existing energy infrastructure.

There is some dispute over whether this is the third or fourth industrial revolution. A book by Professor Jeremy Rifkin has become a bit of a bible for me, as I have sought to develop my thinking on how energy policy might evolve. He thinks that this is the third industrial revolution, but none the less it is an excellent read that very much pulls in the same direction as those who are advocating the fourth industrial revolution.

Ministers will already have looked in great detail at the National Infrastructure Commission’s “Smart Power” report, which is a fantastic publication setting out how we can harness all these wonderful technologies as we digitise the energy system. The reality, as the report observes, is that we could save £8 billion a year for the UK economy if we digitise our energy system and harness those technologies. That figure represents not just immediate savings on our energy bills, but gains in productivity.

Nicola Shaw, the head of National Grid, told the BBC “Today” programme last week that we are seeing

“a smart energy revolution across the country with consumption adjustments reflecting when energy is cheapest”.

The idea that we have to change our consumption habits to meet a changing energy market sounds like a nightmare to most people, but the reality is that we already have many of the technologies in our homes. Most major white goods manufacturers are producing smart appliances already: they are in our shops and, probably unknowingly, we already have them in our homes. Through the internet of things, they will all start to speak to one another to make sure that they operate at the most efficient and cost-effective time. They also report faults, so people will not have to carry on for years with a fridge that uses more power than it should, because it will already have flagged up its fault to whoever manufactured it. These are exciting times and the technologies already exist. It is not, in my view, going to be a case of opting into them, because manufacturers are building them as standard and they will increasingly do so.

The Government face a challenge in preparing our homes, businesses and society for the internet of things from an energy perspective, so I will give my thoughts on our system preparedness before moving on to examples of where we are already seeing the huge economic advantages.

As Ministers know only too well, the smart meter programme is the keystone in achieving the digitisation of our energy system, and I know that they will be keen to push on with that roll-out at best speed. Everything that we seek to do in bringing technological innovation into the energy space depends on those smart meters being in place to digitise the system. Similarly, on the way in which our grid is put together, we want all our generational capacity—from the smallest to the largest—to be able to speak in real time about what it is producing, so that we can have a more dynamic generation system. We also need to sort out the regulatory framework for storage, because at the moment people have, in effect, to pay for their energy twice: first when it is generated, and secondly when it is released from storage. Surely, that cannot continue for much longer.

We also have to make sure that our distribution networks—the substations in our communities—are capable of dealing with more dynamic demand and clustered demand, particularly overnight, when people might be taking advantage of cheap energy to charge cars, run the washing machine and tumble dryer, and heat immersion tanks. None of that will happen automatically without the Government paving the way. Thereafter, however, I am sure that these technologies will find their place in the market by themselves. They will make life better, and people will buy them as a result. The Government do not need to encourage people every year or so to change their mobile phone, because people just want to have the latest technology at their disposal. I am sure that that will be the case in this area if the Government create the right regulatory framework with energy policy.

I turn to storage. The price of storage has already come down from $3,000 per kWh to about $200 today, and it will come down even more quickly still. We saw over the summer reports about the Tesla Panasonic factory in Colorado, the construction of which is being accelerated quite rapidly given the increase in demand. These are exciting times, because storage is the key to flattening the energy supply curve and unlocking the real potential of renewables.

The real technological wizardry, however, is demand-side response. That may be a combination of words that many in the Chamber have not heard before, but it needs to be at the forefront of the way in which we discuss energy. Flattening the supply curve through the availability of storage deals with only half the problem; flattening the demand curve through demand-side management is equally important.

I have been hugely impressed as I have become enthused about DSR, and as I have gone around various companies that are delivering it, by the scale of the savings that it is bringing to businesses. Marriott hotels have signed up to a DSR contract that saves them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Workers at Aggregate Industries’ bitumen plants used to just turn up in the morning and fire up the boilers to get the bitumen tanks up to heat. They would operate over the course of the day, and then they would be switched off. Aggregate Industries now employs technologies that allow it to say, “Our tolerance is that we need to keep these tanks at a certain temperature, and provided that they are at that temperature, we can release energy back to the grid.” It does so, and it gets money for nothing as a result. By employing those technologies, it can sell back energy that it does not need, which it would otherwise just have paid for and wasted. That creates a huge saving.

Similarly, refrigeration is a massive cost for supermarkets and the food industry in general. Sainsbury’s has employed demand-side response, and the store in my constituency in Street, Somerset has released 20 kW of capacity back to the grid simply from DSR. That is extraordinary.

The other area that I want to touch on was the electrification of the transport system. I had to check very carefully with the Clerk of the Energy and Climate Change Committee about when I would find myself in contempt of Parliament, but I understand that if I draw on the evidence rather than on the report itself, it is fine. This is a hugely exciting opportunity for us to employ electric cars and electric haulage systems in the UK. The problem is that I am not sure that we yet have the infrastructure in place to support them, and I am not sure that we have the right fiscal structure to support them either.

I tried to buy an electric car over the summer, and sadly I found that their range was probably not quite enough to allow me to do my duties around my rural Somerset constituency. They are getting there, however, and we just need to incentivise the acceleration of the technology, so that we get beyond the 100-mile range to a range of 200 or 300 miles. If that happens, I think that people will, all of a sudden, go for electric cars quite quickly. All the incentives that the Government have in place—the £4,500 that they contribute towards the car and the contribution they make towards a charging point at the buyer’s home—are fantastic. The Government’s emphasis on establishing a charging infrastructure at motorway service stations and on main roads is also fantastic, but we really need to grow the infrastructure much more if people are to buy the cars and make the saving that we hope they will. The argument is that electric cars will make us more productive as well, particularly when we go beyond merely electric cars to electric autonomous cars, and we find that we can move around our towns and cities much more freely.

Interestingly, in the United States, Coca-Cola has employed hydrogen-electric hybrid vehicles for its entire fleet, and it has made a 20% reduction on its fuel costs. It made that huge saving by employing those technologies and electrifying its transport fleet, which is very exciting. We should look across at that and realise that this is not just something that people do if they are green and they want to be environmentally sensitive. It is something that an individual or a business can do if they want to reduce their operating costs—technology colliding with energy generation and energy consumption to make us more efficient and more cost-effective, and to make all our operating costs that bit cheaper.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you encouraged us to keep within 10 minutes, so I will summarise, rather than go into the many more examples that I am itching to provide. The bottom line is that, while we will focus very much on our digital infrastructure with broadband and 5G mobile phones and we will worry very much about the preparedness of our airports and air routes, as well as of our roads and rail, the energy infrastructure is just as important. In my view, alongside the broadband and mobile phone networks, the three sets of infrastructure of telecoms, broadband and energy will drive the fourth—or third—industrial revolution and allow us to harness all these fantastic technologies. We should seek to do so not just because we are seeking to arrest climate change, but because it is cost-effective, makes business sense, will increase productivity and, ultimately, will be great for our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are huge challenges ahead.

The situation is similar with Amazon, of course. Small businesses used to engage on the Amazon platform. A small business driver would pick up goods and take them to their destination; in future that will be done by autonomous vehicles and drones. Amazon will completely dominate the supply chain, so where is a small business opportunity there?

In previous industrial revolutions, opportunities were created for small businesses—people repaired the looms and sold clothes to the people who had new well-paid jobs. I must disagree with the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who said that people had not benefited from the industrial revolution. Clearly living standards today are much higher than before the industrial revolution. Nevertheless, future opportunities for small businesses are a concern.

[James Heappey]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that both for private residents and for businesses, if one of the characteristics of this industrial revolution is the pursuit of a zero marginal cost for energy, communications and transport, the reduction of those costs could give small businesses, large businesses and private citizens alike a great opportunity to enter a marketplace without those barriers to entry?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good case. In California, people are experimenting with something called a digital dividend. The money that is being made is paid back to people in the form of a dividend for which they do not have to work, but work is important. We want the opportunities; we want the work. We do not want to be redundant, sitting at home while machines do all the work for us. We must make sure that we make the most of the opportunities.

These advantages are locked in, as are tax advantages. The businesses that dominate these technologies are multinational companies that know how to work their way through the system. They circumvent corporation tax and also, arguably, circumvent employment laws. They also circumvent existing businesses and supply chains.

I am not King Canute trying to hold back the tide—this is an inevitability. We cannot resist this change, but the House must develop policies that create a level playing field and also opportunities. We must ensure that our tax system is fit for purpose for the challenges ahead and as we deal with multinational corporations. We must also support the growth of other industries that may spring up on the back of new opportunities that will inevitably be created. We must make sure that we use the opportunities available to us to keep opportunities open for small business.

Paris Agreement on Climate Change

James Heappey Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the USA and China have both ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change; regrets that the Government has not accepted the Opposition’s offer of support for immediate commencement of domestic procedures to ratify the Paris Agreement; further notes that if the UK lags behind its G20 partners in ratifying the Paris Agreement it risks losing diplomatic influence on this crucial future security issue; recognises, in light of the EU referendum vote, the need to maintain a strong international standing and the risk of rising investment costs in UK energy infrastructure; and calls on the Government to publish by the end of next week a Command Paper on domestic ratification and to set out in a statement to this House the timetable to complete the ratification process by the end of 2016.

I am delighted to rise to move this motion.

“My country has an unwavering commitment to pursue the path of sustainable development”: those were the words of President Xi last week when he and President Obama jointly—communist China and capitalist America—announced their ratification of the Paris climate treaty. In a quite extraordinary event, we saw the world’s two superpowers, who are also the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, locked in an embrace to try to save our species from itself—from so altering our atmosphere that we make it almost impossible for many of our fellow human beings to survive, and destroy countless other species and ecosystems in the process. A few days before they did so, I wrote to our Prime Minister urging her to begin the process of ratification of the treaty by the UK. I understand her office passed my letter to the Secretary of State. I also tabled today’s motion to discuss ratification and press for the UK to follow China and America’s lead and get on and ratify the Paris agreement. So now with the US and China making it highly likely that the agreement will formally come into force by the end of this year, I decided that if China and America can put aside their differences and ratify, surely we in Parliament could do the same and become founder parties to the agreement.

I wrote to the Secretary of State and offered to amend the motion to make it the formal vote required by the House of Commons to ratify the treaty. The process of ratification is not unduly complex. It requires the tabling of a Command Paper by the Government and then affirmative resolution by both Houses. The Government have not tabled that Command Paper. In fact, my offer has still not received any formal response. The Scottish National party agreed. The Green party agreed. Plaid Cymru agreed. When I eventually could find a Liberal Democrat to speak to, he agreed as well. Here we had Her Majesty’s official Opposition, the Labour party, offering to forgo one of its precious Opposition day debates to do something on a cross-party basis and for the wider good—to create parliamentary time for something the Government had said they wanted to do but could not find the time for—yet that offer was rejected.

Sometimes, I think that people must look at us in this Parliament and say to themselves, “Can they not, just for once, put aside their petty party differences and agree to do something together? Are they really not bigger than this?” The Government had even said earlier this year that they would do this. In March, David Cameron agreed the EU Council conclusions, which underlined

“the need for the European Union and its Member States to be able to ratify the Paris Agreement as soon as possible and on time so as to be Parties as of its entry into force.”

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State knows that I am a great supporter of the Paris climate change treaty, and I hope that we will ratify it as soon as possible, but I cannot help but feel that he is manufacturing a disagreement here. I think that there is consensus on both sides of the House that we should ratify it. All member states of the EU must ratify it in their time, so in my view, his sense of urgency is also manufactured.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I trust him, and I know that he cares deeply about this issue; I think he knows that I do, too. The olive branch that I extended to the Secretary of State was a genuine one. This is something that I had been told the Government wanted to do; indeed, they stated publicly on many occasions earlier this year that that was the case. However, I had been told that they had been unable to find the time to do it yet, so I decided that this would be an opportunity for them to make time. This is therefore a matter of deep regret to me. I am sure that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box in due course and explain to us precisely why it was impossible to take this opportunity to table the Command Paper yesterday or the day before and to use this parliamentary time to enable us in the House of Commons to vote to ratify the treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

Like the Minister, I was surprised to see the topic for today’s debate given the fact that, as far as I can tell, there is consensus in the House on tackling climate change and ratifying the Paris agreement. I attend many meetings on these subjects, and I know just how heartfelt the concern is for this cause among Opposition and Government Members. To present a picture of disunity is rather unhelpful when there is real consensus of opinion in this place that we must all tackle this real challenge together.

The Climate Change Act 2008 achieved consensus. In Paris, our then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change led the negotiations with great style and was applauded for doing so by Members on both sides of the House. The fifth carbon budget was recommended. There had been concern that it would not be adopted, but it was—in full. We can therefore say that the intention of the Government and of this House is that we should continue to decarbonise at best speed.

It will not, however, be as straightforward in the UK, as a member of the EU, to ratify the treaty as it was for the US, China and countries elsewhere to do so. I have no doubt that Her Majesty’s Government remain as committed to it as ever, and that they will come up with a timeline that works legislatively and within the reality of the context of what the rest of the EU is doing. We should not seek to create any concern when none really exists. The Government’s green credentials are absolutely sound—£52 billion has been invested in renewable energy since 2010, and the deployment of renewables has accelerated under this Government—but we have to balance the energy trilemma. Price, security and decarbonisation are sometimes at odds with one another, so a bit of sense is required in how we proceed. The Government are clear that we will meet our decarbonisation targets, but we will do so without compromising on the other two elements.

I very much agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), who quite rightly said that the same people speak in these debates every time. That is a real shame. These issues range far more widely than the interests of those who are interested simply in energy policy and the environment. I am going to have a go at suggesting a line of argument that might attract a wider audience: whatever someone’s view on anthropogenic climate change, there is no reason not to support many of the opportunities that come from our drive to decarbonise.

I will give just three examples, about heat. I visited a district heating system out in east London recently. On the visit, I went into a one-bedroom flat to meet a chap who was on benefits and right on the poverty line, suffering from fuel poverty. Once the district heating system had been installed, he put £30 on to his new meter in his flat. He had done so in October; when I went to see him at the beginning of March, there was still £13 left on the meter. He had heated his flat for an entire winter for seventeen quid. That is just extraordinary. It is socially just to adopt such policies; it does not just help tackle climate change.

A hospital in London has installed a combined heat and power station to cut down its energy bills by synergising heat and electricity. It realised that the surplus of heat was an opportunity to sell heat to a district heating system outside. It is doing so at a low cost—again, that is socially just—and the proceeds from the heating network have allowed it to build a new cancer centre. Again, that is extraordinary.

I know of a hotel chain that is installing CHPs. It is making huge savings on its energy costs while still absolutely meeting its customers’ needs for roasting hot water at whatever time of day. It is achieving that while saving money and decarbonising.

We must continue the drive towards greater energy efficiency—too much of our heat and electricity is being wasted—and some pretty nifty technologies are available to achieve that. I bring up the point about heat and the need for greater efficiency together to make the point that the marginal financial gains experienced by businesses and homeowners will encourage people to take on these technologies, but we all know that the cumulative effect of their uptake will be a huge reduction in our production of carbon and therefore a huge increase in our ability to meet our targets.

I hope to speak in tomorrow’s Backbench Business debate on the fourth industrial revolution; I will speak at more length then on the incredible synergies I see being achieved when our physical energy infrastructure collides with the really exciting technological innovations that are coming through so rapidly. By seizing those opportunities we are not just seeking to accelerate our decarbonisation; we are developing a world-beating industrial strategy, with green growth and the pursuit of a zero marginal cost of energy right at its heart.

Arresting climate change and splashing out on subsidy are not synonymous. As far as I can see, the renewables sector in this country is succeeding. Offshore wind deployments around Europe are bringing down prices very rapidly. Despite the reduction in subsidy, the solar industry continues to achieve a good rate of deployment. Hydroelectric is coming. Industry is working hard to achieve tidal. A fantastic company in my constituency has employed some of the brightest oceanographers and hydrologists from around the world to look at what we can do with wave power. There are many more technologies beside. Now that we have recalibrated the planning process to empower communities to resist if it is not their will to have it on their doorstep, even onshore wind production is claiming to be able to operate subsidy free.

Sound climate change policy is not about the levels of subsidy. Subsidy can become a crutch if we are not careful. The Government have used subsidy as a lever to grow the renewables industries to the point at which they can go it alone. The direction of travel is clear. This Government are absolutely serious about decarbonisation and meeting our climate change targets.

There is one area where the Government’s policy is not quite so clear. As a Somerset MP, I daren’t not talk about the new nuclear programme. I understand my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s wish to scrutinise the Hinkley deal in more detail, but, as far as I can see, new nuclear is the only low-carbon generation technology that is ready to guarantee now that it will meet our baseload needs in the middle of the next decade. We cannot wish away the reality that our existing nuclear fleet will decommission in the next decade or so.

I seek to champion decentralised energy, a digitised smart energy system and the incredible economic and industrial opportunities that come with it, but renewables plus storage is not ready to commit to being our baseload in the timelines we need. Gas might seem cheap now, but gas prices can change. The debate about the Hinkley price compared with the current wholesale energy price is, in my view, a non-starter. We cannot build anything at the current wholesale price of energy. We must judge Hinkley and the wider new nuclear programme not only on the current strike price or the current wholesale price of energy; we must consider the costs of insufficient capacity in a decade’s time.

We must keep prices as low as possible and decarbonise as quickly possible, and we absolutely must keep the lights on—full stop. I am sure that this will be the last set of large power stations we will ever build. I am absolutely sold on all the incredible stuff that is happening to make renewables work, including storage and demand-side management. I believe that our future is not in big power stations, but we have to take a decision now for what will power the United Kingdom in a decade’s time. As exciting as those technologies are, none is ready to look us in the eye and say, “In 10 years’ time, we will keep your lights on.” The new nuclear programme is. I hope the Government agree and put Hinkley forward at the first possible opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

I do not of course dismiss the possibility that the experts may be right. I have never said they are wrong; I have merely suggested that they ought to be able to answer some fairly basic questions if they expect us as policymakers to go ahead with policies that are going to be profoundly unpopular with the public and which, in many cases, the NGOs that support those policies will not support the consequences of—I will come back to that. The point the hon. Gentleman is making is that if some of this warming is natural, the amount of warming that is not natural is that much greater in terms of the percentage of CO₂ that has caused it. [Interruption.] Well, there is another issue that I am tempted to go into, but I have been asked by the Whips to keep it short and I will respect that, and that is whether or not this is a logarithmic increase. In other words—[Interruption.] Yes, I am getting looks from all around. In simple terms, if X amount of CO₂ has caused Y amount of warming, would 2X of CO₂ cause twice as much warming? People seem to have made the assumption that it would, but of course, in nature things often do not work that way.

Let me return to the Paris agreement. It talks about limiting temperature increases to about 2° of what they were in pre-industrial times. With due respect to the Minister, which pre-industrial times is that? I do not mean to look angry, but which times is he talking about? Presumably 1800 is about the base figure, but pre-industry goes on for about 4 billion years longer than that. We could quite easily go back a few years further and say 2° above temperatures in the medieval warm period, when they were around the same level as they are now. They were around the same temperature as they are now in the Roman optimum, too. I am probably going to mess this point up, but a Greek philosopher—I think he was called Thracius—was writing about date trees in Greece and how they could be made to grow but could not produce fruit, therefore intimating, through that, that temperatures were about the same then as now in Greece because date trees behave in the same way as they did 2,000 years ago. The point I am making is if we took as a pre-industrial basepoint the year 10 AD we could probably carry on merrily putting CO₂ into the atmosphere for quite a while yet before we hit 2° degrees above that period.

[James Heappey]

My hon. Friend is an oracle on these things. I do not share his analysis, but if he is right does he not still agree with me that a low-carbon future with its clean air and low cost is surely something to be embraced and sought anyway?

[David T. C. Davies]

My hon. Friend is making the assumption that carbon dioxide is some sort of pollutant. It is not. Sulphur dioxide is a pollutant, and we have done wonderful things in getting rid of that. Carbon dioxide is actually the elixir of life, and a small increase in carbon dioxide has a very beneficial effect on the ability of farmers to grow crops. So I do not accept the premise of my hon. Friend’s question, which is that CO₂ is a naturally bad thing.

I would of course accept that we should concentrate on making sure our air quality and environment are good. I have been a surfer for 20 years—or I was until I had children, anyway—and I strongly believe in the environment. I was a member of the environmental group Surfers Against Sewage for years. I am not some kind of lunatic who wants to tear the environment apart and build everywhere, but I do have concerns about policies that are going to be enormously costly and have an impact on businesses, including some in my area.

I suggest that Ministers should ask themselves whether they actually believe what the NGOs that call on them to adopt certain policies are saying. A good point was made earlier about nuclear power. I believe it is absolutely safe. It is very interesting that whenever anyone proposes a nuclear power station somewhere, some of the biggest supporters are the people who live in that area. In Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, the Wylfa site is being supported by Members of Parliament right across the political spectrum, including those of Plaid Cymru, who normally try and paint themselves, literally and figuratively, as the most green party of them all. When it comes to nuclear jobs, Plaid Cymru is very enthusiastic about nuclear power and I commend it for that. It is right to be so. Let us contrast that with what happens when people want to put up wind farms. I know of Liberal Democrat politicians in Wales who will bang the drum for wind farms at every opportunity until someone suggests that one should be constructed in their own constituency, at which point they come up with all sorts of reasons why that should not happen.

One of my concerns is that green groups—and perhaps the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—say that global warming is the greatest threat to mankind but then oppose proposals for a nuclear power station, which could resolve some of our energy problems without creating any extra carbon dioxide. The same attitude has been shown repeatedly by green groups towards the Severn tidal barrage. I do not know whether that project would stack up economically, but from an environmental point of view it has the capacity to produce about 5% of the UK’s electricity without creating carbon dioxide emissions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

Yes; it is done in the single departmental plans and the annual reports, and the Committee on Climate Change looks at these targets every year and says whether we are going to meet our various carbon budgets. There is a range of reporting mechanisms, and I see it as the job of the Committee to point out where we think things are going wrong.

We could see a whole range of policies that would help drive low-emission vehicle uptake, and local authorities had a range of innovative ideas, particularly in the area of fleet procurement. The Government are probably the largest buyer of vehicles in the country, and if the NHS were to move to all electric vehicles, they would get them at much less than £30,000 per car. They could then guarantee buy-back and there would then be a second-hand market that gets people used to buying these vehicles. We could see workplaces investing in charging points—one of the perceived problems with electric vehicles is their range—and the introduction of a national grant scheme, or scrappage scheme, for electric and low-emission taxis.

We also want the Treasury to think about changes to the taxation of vehicles, including company cars, to make electric vehicles more attractive. This is really important for the UK’s industrial strategy. I was born and brought up in Coventry, and I watched the car manufacturing industry virtually disappear around me in the 1980s. The remaining manufacturers, including Nissan, Honda, LTI—which I am delighted to say makes electric taxis in Coventry—and Toyota, need a reason to choose their UK car factories based in Sunderland, Swindon, Coventry and Derby to manufacture the next generation of low-emission vehicles. We have heard from the Japanese ambassador about some of the anxieties following the vote to leave the European Union, but we are obviously keen to see Nissan manufacture the next generation of its electric car, the Leaf, in Sunderland from 2018. That decision is under consideration at the moment. Investors want stability, certainty and policies that will signal the Government’s intention to incentivise the uptake of these vehicles. All those factors are vital.

[James Heappey]

The Energy and Climate Change Committee has similarly been looking at the uptake of electric vehicles. What assessment has the Environmental Audit Committee made of the preparedness of our energy system, particularly for clusters of electric vehicles? For example, are we going to be able to provide the level of charge required if, say, two dozen or more electric cars on the same road all need to be charged at the same time?

[Mary Creagh]

We did not look at all the life cycle issues, but I have a feeling that that might be coming out in the hon. Gentleman’s report. If so, that would be great—a good bit of boxing and coxing from both Committees. He makes a good point: we still have coal-fired power stations, and it would make no sense to have emitting power stations fuelling electric vehicles. We need to look at the whole life cycle of the power supply. There are big issues with battery storage and battery life, and it would be a great prize for our industry if we could find a way to capture renewable energy and store it when we have more than we need.

I have talked about air pollution and air quality zones, and the fact that the targets will not be met until 2020. The report contains a detailed analysis of that. The Volkswagen emissions scandal revealed that 1 million diesel cars in the UK contained cheat device software, and we found a worrying inertia among Ministers when it came to deciding whether to take legal action or any other action. We want Ministers to ask the Vehicle Certification Agency to carry out tests to find out whether those Volkswagen group cars in the UK would have failed emissions tests without those cheat devices. It is important for people to know that. We would also encourage the Serious Fraud Office and the Competition and Markets Authority to make their decisions about whether to take legal action against Volkswagen. In the United States, Volkswagen owners have already started to receive compensation; some have received as much as $10,000.

The Committee has also produced a report recently on the Government’s approach to flooding. Flooding is the greatest risk that climate change places on our country, and the risk is threefold. There is a risk from surface water following heavy rainfall, whether in summer or winter. The July 2007 flooding, which flooded more than 1,000 homes in Wakefield, was the largest civil emergency that this country had seen since world war two. There is a risk from river flooding, which is what we saw in the Christmas and Boxing day floods in York and all across the country, including Scotland and Wales. There is also a risk from a tidal surge from the North sea. We were in a position, I think in 2014, in which a combination of high winter tides and heavy rainfall resulted in red flood warnings and evacuations from Newcastle all the way down to Margate. The entire east coast of England was at risk from a tidal surge.

The ways of mitigating these risks are complex. We need to get in place the civil resilience systems so that we are able to respond when floods occur. So far, we have been fortunate that most of them have happened at different times, but if we were to experience all those different kinds of flood problems at the same time, there could be issues relating to our ability to respond adequately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his exceedingly early intervention in my speech. Of course, there are many examples of the kind that he gives.

We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) about the worrying loss of UK influence on tackling climate change, like so much else that results from the Brexit vote. He also mentioned his grave concerns about the damage being done to the international community’s ability to tackle climate change, given our leading role up till now and the likely dramatic reduction in our influence outside the European Union.

We heard contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who reinforced the importance of the UK’s role and the implications of Brexit. He questioned whether Government policy meant that we were on track to meet our obligations. That theme was picked up by other hon. Members later in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Copeland (Mr Reed) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), among other contributions.

Earlier, the Minister spoke about what he called the Government’s fantastic record, but he rather ignored the fact that investor confidence has plummeted, subsidies have been cut and jobs, not least in the solar industry, have been lost. He blamed the European Union for our not having ratified the Paris agreement, while acknowledging that other European countries had done so. The Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been happy enough recently to act against the rest of the EU. The UK recently blocked action by the rest of the EU to protect our steel industry. The Government are happy enough to take unilateral action when it suits them, but we had enough false claims about the EU during the referendum campaign, thank you.

[James Heappey]

It is my understanding that no EU member country can fully ratify the treaty until all have done so and the EU ratifies it as well, so some European countries may have taken the early legislative steps to put themselves on the way to that, but I do not believe that any of them will have ratified it yet.

[Bill Esterson]

Last time I checked, France was still a full member of the EU, with no intention of leaving.

We had the announcement last night, and we have heard the loose interpretation of legal obligations today in the Chamber when it comes to the preparation and delivery of the fourth and fifth carbon plans. That announcement, the approach and what we heard today confirmed the need for today’s debate, and it is why we are right to press the motion.

It is astonishing how quickly the Government have trashed our hard-won reputation for leading the world in responding to the challenges of climate change. Our role as key EU negotiators at Kyoto, our world-leading Climate Change Act 2008 and our progressive reputation at the Paris climate conference all risk being left in tatters if we are seen to be dragged to the table at the last minute as a result of being outside the EU. Whereas China, the US and France, among many others, have all ratified the Paris agreement, despite what the Prime Minister said earlier today, we are being left lagging behind.

At least the Government have moved on from the position under the previous Business Secretary, who refused to let the words “industrial strategy” pass his lips. The new Business Secretary will have to develop a strategy. That is especially true in respect of green energy. The argument for energy, particularly green energy, to be at the heart of our industrial strategy was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, and the Minister made similar remarks in his speech.

Last year, we were going to lead the way in Paris with a £1 billion carbon capture and storage competition. The United Nations framework convention on climate change identified CCS as one of the interventions that could help countries worldwide meet emissions reduction targets, yet just a week before the Paris climate conference the Government scrapped their plan, despite the international praise it had received. After the Paris agreement had been signed, the Government abolished DECC, precisely when the Department’s expertise would most sorely be needed. They cut subsidies for green household energy initiatives by 65%, and then they increased subsidies for fossil fuel production at the same time as cutting investment in green technologies. While the cost of green energy has been falling, the Government have instead focused on fracking.

There are signs, with the arrangements for devolution, that we are starting to see the sort of long-term, ambitious vision at a local level that is sadly lacking at the national level. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is Labour’s candidate for metro mayor for the Liverpool city region. After many false dawns, we finally have a chance for the Mersey barrage to be a reality, developing the high-tech industries that can drive forward the economy and deliver the quality jobs his constituents and mine so badly need, while potentially delivering energy self-sufficiency to the city region. The devolved Administration in Wales are committed to green technology, with eye-catching proposals for tidal lagoons—something mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. Meanwhile, Sadiq Khan has committed to make London a city run entirely on clean energy by 2050, joining the leaders of 50 Labour-run councils in making a 100% clean-energy pledge. Sadiq and his Labour colleagues recognise the damage being done by harmful emissions to the health of the people they represent.

Labour in local government and in the devolved Administrations wants to deliver on the green agenda, but it cannot do these things alone, and they should not have to be done in a piecemeal way. Why is the green agenda not a national priority, on which Government, local authorities and Assembly Administrations can all work together to deliver as full partners? Where is the underwriting by the Government of the development of our green industries? Where is the Government-backed green energy company to challenge the market and to address complacency from the energy cartel, which is simply not set up to put the needs of residential or business customers first? That is what follows from the short-term nature of the stock market-listed companies that make up the cartel and from their need to put shareholder returns above all else. Where is the development of a national energy strategy to address the very real security concerns about supply? If the Government are committed to the green agenda, why, oh why, did they privatise the Green Investment Bank?

The Government are missing the fact that inconsistency and uncertainty are the enemy of investment. Last year, for the first time, the UK fell out of Ernst & Young’s top 10 most attractive countries for renewables investment. We used to top the table, thanks to clear long-term planning that gave investors confidence, but we fell to fourth in 2013 and 11th in 2015, and now we are 13th. The Government’s inconsistency is also undermining confidence in green tech start-ups. Why has confidence gone among investors? Because the Government have put short-term budget cuts before strategic investment, and because they make and revoke green policy piecemeal and in a vacuum.

There is an overwhelming economic case for the UK to build infrastructure and cutting-edge technologies, not just to meet our Paris agreement commitments. We are well placed to serve the market that exists given that 180 countries signed the Paris agreement. There are nearly 100,000 low-carbon and renewable energy businesses in the UK. UK Government figures value the green economy as a whole at £122 billion a year—double the size of the automotive industry, twice the size of the chemicals industry and five times the gross value added of aerospace.

Green energy is a major trade opportunity. We have signed deals for low-carbon trade of £6.7 billion with China and £3.2 billion with India. The global green energy market is growing at over 4% a year and is expected to reach £5 trillion this year. Trade in green energy has the potential to transform our export prospects just at the moment we most need it, following the Brexit vote.

Then there is the long-term cost of failing to invest. The decision to cut the pioneering CCS project might have saved the Exchequer £1 billion this year, but it is forecast to push the bill for meeting climate change agreements up by more than £30 billion, according to the National Audit Office—a very clear example of false economy. So where is the strategy: where is the coherence? Where is the Government’s fabled long-term plan? Whether we are looking for an environmental, economic or business rationale, the plan simply is not there. No wonder the 100,000 members of the public who signed the petition on ratifying the agreement on environmental grounds were joined by investors worth £13 trillion arguing the business and economic case for early and enthusiastic ratification of Paris.

The complete lack of strategy in green and renewable industries is threatening to rob the UK of a golden opportunity at the very time when it is most needed. The opportunities exist in renewables. They include the potential for us to be self-sufficient, the delivering of energy security, lower prices, a chance to develop world-leading status in a high-tech sector, and a massive export opportunity at a time of great economic need—and all the while we deliver on our obligations to the international community and to the environment.

We have a new Business Secretary: the chance for a fresh start. If he wants to—I hope that he is serious about an industrial strategy and about our global and domestic responsibilities—he has the chance to develop and deliver a strategy that puts the green sector at the heart of what his Government do. He has the chance to support our renewables industry, so that it can be the world leader it wants to be and can be. I hope that he takes the chance he has been given.