Energy Bill
Debate between Mel Stride and Barry Gardiner
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are already many positive signals for investors in the marketplace? There is the 2050 target, there is the levy control framework that enables billions of pounds to be contributed by central Government, and there is the Government amendment to the Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and which allows the Secretary of State to take those measures in 2016.
Is the hon. Gentleman not as concerned as I am—and, indeed, as Professor Dieter Helm was when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee—about the possibility that including additional targets that impose restrictions on the marketplace will simply lead to higher costs for both British business and consumers?
Barry Gardiner
I agree that it is important to address the question of what the costs to British industry and British consumers will be. As the hon. Gentleman will accept, the independent Committee on Climate Change has already addressed that question, and, indeed, its remarks and recommendations were based precisely on its assessment of the likely costs and benefits and the signals that currently exist in the market; but he has made a fair point. We certainly need to ask what signals exist, and what effect either costs or benefits are likely to have on our national well-being.
It is heartening to know that the Government want to hear what the Committee on Climate Change wants to say in three years’ time. Perhaps they will now extend that courtesy further by not just hearing but listening to what the committee is saying today.
The other argument that the Government Whips have deployed against the amendments is that sector-specific targets without road maps are meaningless. That is, to a degree, relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). This is not only about the targets; it is also about the road maps relating to the implementation of those targets, and that, of course, is precisely why we have a levy control framework. It is also why the EMR report of the Committee on Climate Change calls on the Government to extend to 2030 funding allocated to support the development of less mature technologies under the framework, to present
“options to support mobilisation of new sources of finance, including roles for the Green Investment Bank and Infrastructure UK”,
and to publish in the EMR delivery plan
“the amount of capacity that the Government intends to contract”
over the next period.
The final argument that we have heard from Ministers is that they do not wish to sacrifice jobs and growth for the sake of the environment. That is the most fallacious argument of all. It was dealt with very well in some of the pre-Committee hearings. Andrew Buglass from the Royal Bank of Scotland told the Energy Bill Committee that there is a cliff edge and that cliff edge is making it very difficult for supply chain investors to invest in the UK. Overcoming the insecurity created by the 2020 cliff edge does not require more public money or even the promise of more money. It requires coherence in the form of a 2030 target that proves to industry that the demand for low-carbon energy will continue to rise beyond 2020.
The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), has previously quoted comments made by Mr Buglass in an Energy Bill Committee sitting, observing that Mr Buglass stated that a 2030 target
“is absolutely critical from the conversations I have with potential supply-chain investors because they quite rightly point out that it is very difficult for them to take investment to their board if they really only have visibility on three or four years-worth of work.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2013; c. 51, Q154.]
We must put that target in place if we are to incentivise potential investors and achieve the investment in low-carbon industry that we need.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Debate between Mel Stride and Barry Gardiner(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary commended the first part of the Bill by saying that it was fair, that it was progressive and that it supported the poorest in society. In so commending the first part of the Bill, he damned the second part, because he could not say that the second part of the Bill was fair, progressive and supported the poorest in society. That is the essence of the Opposition’s argument this evening.
The second part of the Bill is incoherent in principle and in practice and, worse than that, it is ineffective in practice. Let us look at the fundamentals. Who is it that leads us out of recession? I am happy to make common cause with Members on the Government Benches and say that it will be the private sector, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, that will lead us into the growth that this country badly needs. Why is it, then, that the holiday provision is given precisely in those areas where private sector growth has been proven year after year not to take place?
We know, and it has been a cause of problems to us, that it has been in London and the south-east that small businesses set up and grow. That has been the engine of the private sector in our economy, yet instead of seeking to use that to advantage, the second part of the Bill is incoherent in principle because it denies that region the holiday and because it denies those potential businesses the benefits that will be made available in parts of the country that have been proven not to be able to utilise them, and therefore not to be able to bring us out of the recession and be the engine of growth that we all want.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) made the point that to extend the holiday to London and the south-east would cost £660 million. Of course, there will be a cost to the scheme, wherever it is put in place, but presumably that cost is seen as an investment to achieve the growth and dynamism in the economy that will return that investment multiplied to the Exchequer. Yet £660 million is not being invested in the very parts of our country where we know from experience that the private sector is most likely to give the maximum returns to the public purse. That is incoherent.
Now let us look at whether the measure is incoherent in practice. The Budget documentation quoted in the explanatory notes to the Bill states:
“The Government’s strategy to support private sector enterprise in all parts of the UK aims…to encourage the creation of private sector jobs in regions reliant on public sector employment, through reducing the cost to new business of employing staff”.
Yet we have heard this evening that that is not the case. There are parts of London and the south-east that are far more reliant on public sector employment than parts of the country that will receive the benefit from the holiday. That is incoherent and wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made the pertinent point that the Bill was unfair in another respect, and one can only marvel at that unfairness coming from the Conservatives. The unfairness is that the Bill is anti-competitive. My hon. Friend presented the straightforward example of two companies alike in all that they do, except that one will get a £50,000 benefit in its first year of operation which is not available to the other—and that from the party which believes in free markets and in abolishing anti-competitive practices? How can those on the Treasury Bench put that forward as a coherent philosophy?
Mel Stride
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the purpose of the holiday, as we are calling it, is to try to compensate for a reduction in the size of the public sector in certain parts of the country, rather than targeting it specifically, as he and other Opposition Members seem to be suggesting, at areas of higher unemployment?
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman suggests that what the Government are seeking to do is compensate in some way for the decimation that they believe they will cause to employment in those areas. We share a belief that the Government’s cuts will have that decimating effect on employment in those areas. Where we differ is that the hon. Gentleman believes that the measures will in some way compensate for that, whereas I am pointing out that in other parts of the country, precisely in those areas where they are not to apply, they would have a greater effect in boosting the economy.
The hon. Gentleman may say that the measures will have a marginal effect in mitigating the increases in unemployment which he knows will come from his Government’s policies. I do not believe, and I am confident that he does not believe, that they will totally compensate for those. But the most important thing is to get our economy moving again; after all, that is why we are making those public sector cuts in the first place. If we are focused on economic regeneration, we must seek to make that investment where we know it will achieve the maximum return.