Mark Garnier MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 10 Dec 2024 · Telegraph Poles: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his letter, which was incredibly helpful; I am grateful to him for engaging on this. The point I was making was not that the business model is about a cash flow revenue coming from the delivery of broadband, but that some of these businesses are cynically creating a capital asset that they then want to sell off. It is the infrastructure asset, not the cash flow, that they are after. That is where we get this competition of people building out the poles to create a capital value asset, not a cash flow value asset.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Telegraph Poles: Birmingham · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. She makes a powerful point on behalf of her constituents. In my constituency, we have a similar situation in Stourport-on-Severn, where firms are using permitted development rights in areas where residents are not even allowed to put up a garden fence because of planning approvals. Does she agree that it is a cynical attempt by many of these providers to build an infrastructure that provides capital value that can be sold on? That is less to do with delivering full-fibre broadband than with making money in the short term for those operators.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  This Committee may go on record as one of the swiftest yet! It makes perfect sense to modify the Building Societies Act 1986 to bring it in line with the Companies Act 2006. We have no objection to the order. It is possible that it may only affect one building society, but none the less it would be fairly old-fashioned to have two separate sets of rules depending on which type of business we are discussing. We are behind the order, which makes a huge amount of sense. I will not take any more of the Committee’s time. Question put and agreed to.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I think this is the fourth or fifth time that the Minister and I have met across a Committee room, and yet again I do not think we are going to have any problems at all. At the last of our meetings in one of these rooms, I asked her a number of questions, and I am incredibly grateful to her and her office for getting back to me so quickly. I think that illustrates the very good working relationship between the Opposition and the Government in this respect. The Opposition are delighted with all these measures. I was struggling to work out some complicated questions in order to make the Minister work for her office, but the only one I could come up with is on the timeline. She made reference to some further statutory instruments that will be introduced, and it would be very helpful if we had an idea of the timeline for when the process will be completed. Aside from that, we are very happy to support the draft regulations and I thank the Minister very much for all those acronyms—I am learning more and more each time we meet.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Minister and I are going to have an outbreak of unanimity in just about everything we do; we have yet to find something we disagree on. Members will be aware that this legislation was originally due to be implemented in May, but we got caught up in a bit of a general election, which unfortunately did not go quite so well for us. The Opposition therefore fully support the instrument, as Members would imagine. The Minister made a good point about why the regulations are incredibly important: there are far too many people gaming the system. To support what she was saying, banks incur a great deal of costs as a result, and those costs are inevitably reflected on to consumers; so although it sounds in the first instance like the claims management companies are doing everybody a favour, they are actually increasing the cost of financial services for absolutely everybody. We are therefore wholly supportive of this instrument. I have a couple of questions. To make sure the instrument does not affect some people badly, can the Minister set out how the Treasury proposes to monitor the changes to ensure that they go according to plan and that, where there is a two-tier system, vulnerable people do not unwittingly find themselves not represented if they use a claims management company? My other question is on a technicality, and the Minister may not know the answer. The first 10 claims are free of charge for professional representatives. After that, claims cost £250, reduced to £75 if they are successful. Can claims management companies put in class actions—for example, a claim for 1,000 people 10 times—hoping to get a lot of people covered, and thereby potentially increasing the return they could get for each claim, since it is a class action rather than an individual claim, or is the intention that each claim will be an individual case, rather than a group of cases? If the Minister does not know the answer to that now, she should feel free to write to me. We have absolutely no intention of opposing the instrument. It is a fantastic piece of legislation, brought in by the previous Government, and it is good to see that it has survived the general election, unlike the Minister who signed it off in the first place.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Homeless Families: Relocation outside London · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He talks about the number of people who are vulnerable. In my constituency of Wyre Forest, we discovered that so many people were being moved from Brent to Birmingham that Birmingham filled up and they had to come to Kidderminster as well. This is a huge problem that has been going on for a long time. It is absolutely tragic for families who are separated from their family networks, their friendship networks and the possibility of getting a job.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Draft Collective Investment Schemes (Temporary Recognition) and Central Counterparties (Transitional Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Insurance Distribution (Regulated Activities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Efford, for chairing these proceedings. I thank the Minister for going into quite a lot of detail on what is highly technical stuff. The Opposition welcome the changes. They continue the important work started by the previous Government to ensure that our legislative framework is fit for purpose after Brexit. Removing redundant EU references and aligning our investment fund regulations with UK priorities, we are streamlining oversight and maintaining stability in our financial markets. More of interest to the industry will be the clarity given in extending the temporary marketing permissions regime before the roll-out of the overseas funds regime. As I said, we absolutely welcome the changes; but I do have a couple of questions, the first of which is on the application process for the funds. We are introducing landing slots for UCITS funds transitioning from the TMPR to the OFR. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that fund operators are fully prepared and supported to meet the deadlines to avoid any disruptions? The other thing that is important for the future of the City and the growth agenda of the City is reciprocal access. While this is all about allowing access for European operators to come into the UK post Brexit—this may be a wider point to do with the growth agenda—what measures will the Government be taking to try to get reciprocal access for UK products to be marketed in the European Union? Aside from those two questions, we are very happy with this move and will be supporting these measures.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Financial Services: Mansion House Speech · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I congratulate the Chancellor, via the Economic Secretary, on her maiden speech to Mansion House. It has gone down broadly very well, and we are pleased that she recognises the City for what it is. The Minister rightly points out that the UK hosts a competitive and global financial centre, but changes to regulation must not be burdensome, and they must be worked through properly with the industry. When and where the Government take steps to enhance the performance of that sector, they can be guaranteed of our support. As the Chancellor mentioned in her Mansion House speech, in a generous tribute to her predecessor, much of the regulation reform discussed today was started under a Conservative Chancellor. I therefore wish to put on record recognition for my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) and the work he did in that area. Before I turn to the substance of the statement, inevitably I will talk about the Budget. It is worth reminding the House of the most pressing parts of the Chancellor’s Budget, which she left out of her Mansion House speech. In her speech she mentioned the word growth no fewer than 41 times, but we have to look at the facts. When the Conservatives left government, we had the fastest growing economy in the G7, but now growth has halved. The Chancellor’s increase in national insurance means that businesses are picking up the tab to pay for Labour’s open tap on spending. She will no doubt have read the letter sent to her by 200 hospitality businesses, highlighting job losses across their sector and a wider range of sectors. Despite all her talk about growth, business groups and economists agree that Labour’s approach to the Budget is choking the momentum of our economy. Britain deserves a Government who back growth, empower investment and deliver prosperity. I hope that the Minister today will admit to the British public that while she talks about growth, her party’s plans to grow the economy fall short of an economic growth agenda. On the substance of the reforms that the Minster has outlined today, we believe that the objectives that the Chancellor is attempting to achieve with her Mansion House reforms are broadly the right ones. First, it goes without saying that delivery of the reforms that the Conservatives started in government is to be welcomed, including the focus on growth; my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) legislated to ensure that financial services and markets regulation has a secondary growth duty. It is regrettable that the Government could not publish the final version of the pension investment review or the pension Bill in time to accompany this statement. As I turn to my questions, I should make it abundantly clear to the Minister and the House that these reforms must remain focused on delivering the best deal for pension savers. While additional investment is welcome, the pension market should not be treated as a Government cash cow for public investment if it loses sight of the paramount objective of delivering a secure return for savers. It is true that unlocking greater investment and delivering greater returns for pension savers can come together—both can happen at the same time—but I must push for the publication of the finer details of this policy. The emphasis must still be on pension savers. While greater investment and greater returns can come together, security in retirement is what the pension industry is all about. Work to reconcile those two aims was furthered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash when he announced reforms earlier this year, which included requiring pension funds to publicly disclose how much they invest in UK businesses compared with those overseas, and disallowing schemes that performed poorly for savers from taking on new business from employers. Can the Minister confirm that those reforms remain Government policy, and that nothing she is announcing today changes those policy strands? Can the Minister set out a timeframe for the proposed mega-funds? Some 86 local authority pension funds will be consolidated into just eight. What are the criteria on which the Government have chosen eight? Why not one, 10 or 15? The Government note that the local government pension scheme in England and Wales has “assets…split across 86 different administering authorities…with local government officials and councillors managing each fund.” Can the Minister clarify whether each of the 86 local government pension funds will have a stake in each of the eight mega-funds, or will they each be allocated to just one mega-fund, thereby possibly distorting the risk profile of that pension fund? The Government state that the consolidation into a handful of mega-funds will enable the funds to invest more in assets such as infrastructure. Can the Minster confirm whether the “infrastructure” that the Government mention in their press release refers to both public and private infrastructure projects? On the topic of infrastructure, what is the expected return on Government-owned infrastructure projects? Will pensioners ever be mandated to take lower returns to support the Government’s investment objectives? The Minister with responsibility for pensions, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), who is in her place, gave rise to some ambiguity about whether there will be mandating of pension fund investment in Government projects in her Financial Times article this morning. Furthermore, will the trustees overseeing these mega-funds be restricted by the Government as to what they can invest in, or will they be free to choose their investment and risk profiles? The Government also state: “A new independent review process will be established to ensure each of the 86 Administering Authorities is fit for purpose.” Can the Minister give any further detail on that review? Who will be running it, for how long will it be running, and what is considered “fit for purpose”? How many of these funds would have to be considered not fit for purpose for the Government to reconsider the number of mega-funds? To conclude, we support what the Government are trying to do with their reforms, many of which are ours, but questions remain about the detail of the policy. We will scrutinise the detail of the legislation when published. I finish as I started—by saying that the Government are talking about investment and growth, but have just delivered a Budget that downgrades growth and crowds out business investment. Those things are not compatible, and we urge the Government to put forward a workable plan for growth. They must not rely solely on the financial services sector to bail them out.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is exciting—fantastic—for me to start my new job as a shadow Treasury Minister on something so utterly uncontroversial. Obviously, we will support this; there is no question about that. But I would like to make a couple of points. It is interesting to see that the Public Works Loan Board amount, on a year-by-year basis, has now gone up to pre-pandemic levels, and that we have come back up quite quickly. It is also worth bearing in mind that that was around the time when the new rules were introduced about prudence; it will be interesting to see whether there is any explanation as to why that has happened now. It could be perfectly harmless, but it is important for monitoring. I have three principal questions. First, the Minister mentioned the rules that were brought in. Can the Government confirm that they will remain committed to those new rules? That is very important. They were there to avoid speculative investment, and we want the money to be properly used to benefit local communities, albeit at a commercial rate of return. It is important to make sure that speculation does not come into this, so can he confirm that? Will the Government also confirm that they intend to closely monitor how councils are borrowing? That is important because some well-meaning district councils may make some slightly unwise decisions. What metrics will the Government use to make sure that local authorities are borrowing prudently in accordance with the rules, so that we can understand how that is being monitored? Finally, what steps are being taken to manage debts effectively, ensuring that they do not hinder future potential borrowing requirements or place tighter strain on local authorities that may or may not be struggling with tight budgets for one reason or another? We are keen to support the order; it is a perfectly reasonable thing and it is important for us to support our local authorities. Some are incredibly innovative and a lot of the money is used to support local communities at a commercial rate of return. We see nothing wrong with that, but I will be grateful if the Minister can help me with those questions. It looks as if we may be finished within five minutes.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State talked about the fact that the price of agricultural land is artificially high because of tax avoiders trying to avoid paying inheritance tax. The implication of the proposed measures would be that the price of agricultural land will fall. That may sound attractive to people who are trying to come into the market, but has my right hon. Friend considered the number of farmers who have mortgages against their land? They could find themselves in negative equity as a result of the pushing down of the price of agricultural land.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  You will be delighted, Sir Edward, to hear that I do not intend to keep the Committee for long. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am going to be popular. I thank the Minister for her introduction of the regulations; this is quite a technical issue and she did well in introducing it. I am delighted, because on both occasions when we have got together in Committee it has been terrific, from our point of view, to see that the new Government are carrying on the hard work done by the previous Government and, indeed, endorsing all our good policies. CCUS is an exciting technology, and it was the announcement in last year’s Budget by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), on the delivery of £20 billion of investment that led us here. It is worth mentioning that that is reinforced in paragraph 5.4 of the explanatory memorandum, which says that “the HMT Budget 2023 confirmed government’s intention to make up to £20 billion available to support the early deployment of CCUS”. When he gave the recent statement on CCUS, the Secretary of State said that that money had not been allocated; it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm the Government’s position. All the evidence seems to suggest that it was allocated, so the Secretary of State may have misled the House when he said it had not been. Much work has gone into getting everything moving forward and making CCUS a reality. I thank officials for the huge amount of work they have done to get these technical regulations over the line. As the new Government are agreeing to continue to support CCUS, we hope that means we will hear more about the track 2 clusters, Acorn and Viking, which were due to make progress over the summer. Again, we asked in the exchanges on the recent statement for a progress report on track 2 clusters; it would be helpful if we could have one. I will leave it at that, Sir Edward. The Opposition are happy to support the policies that we introduced, and we are delighted that the new Government are so enthusiastic to do likewise.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  That is great. If people accept pylons, that is absolutely fine, but there are an awful lot of people who do not and we can look at where the alternatives could be cheaper.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I am mindful of time, but I will take one more intervention.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I see; I might have misunderstood what the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire said. It is an engineering challenge, but we need to listen to the experts who know what they are talking about. I am not entirely certain that I understand the point that the hon. Gentlemen are trying to make, but if we can underground cables it would be better for communities, certainly if it is cheaper and better for the environment. If that means taking a bit of extra time, we need to get together to think carefully about that. I will get back to my point about the University of Oxford and Oxford PV. Using that kind of technology, together with community-based power generation, has the potential to reduce strain on the national grid and limit the need for large-scale projects that can disrupt our landscape and our communities. Through the Energy Act 2023, the previous Government committed to removing barriers to community energy projects by launching a call for evidence. I am interested to hear from the Minister whether the new Labour Government will honour that commitment—perhaps he will share that information with us in his remarks later. The challenges that we face in transmitting renewable energy, particularly wind power, from areas of generation to areas of demand underscore the urgent need for grid upgrades. The current limitations in grid capacity, most notably the B6 boundary between Scotland and England, have become a major constraint on our energy system. The B6 boundary is the largest single network bottleneck, preventing vast amounts of wind power generated in Scotland from reaching higher-demand areas in England. As a result, we are facing enormous constraint payments, whereby wind turbines are shut down despite being able to generate clean and affordable energy. That must be the greatest source of frustration for people living in areas of natural beauty such as the highlands and the Shetland Islands. Not only have those people had their landscape blighted but, if the equipment is not working at full capacity, bill payers will be paying for constraint payments in order for the equipment not to generate electricity. For instance, Orkney has some of the most powerful wind turbines in the UK, yet they often have to be turned off simply because the grid cannot handle the energy they produce. That is a glaring example of how our infrastructure is failing to keep up with the energy transition. The highlands and islands are energy-rich regions, but their potential is being stifled by inadequate transmission networks. I turn to the biggest concern for many residents, which is how the Government will deliver the infrastructure required for a decarbonised energy grid by 2030. I must say to new Labour MPs that at the next general election in just four or five years’ time, all constituents—Labour MPs’ constituents in particular—will ask, “Did you meet your 2030 target?”, “What did you do to my energy bills?”, and “What did you do to the countryside?” Labour Members claim that their plans will save households £300 a year on energy bills, but it seems incredible that that saving will ever be achieved. I asked in the House when we might receive a full systems cost analysis of Labour’s net zero plans by 2030, but we still have not had a proper answer—the answer given was, “In due course.” We need an answer to the question of how much this will all cost. Although the Government’s pledge to cut everyone’s energy bills by £300 remains on their website, curiously no Ministers can bring themselves to repeat it. I have no doubt that the Minister would be delighted to do so if he gets the chance—he will have many chances, because I will wind up in a minute. Despite that promise, the actual price of the proposal will put a huge strain on taxpayers. I have a number of questions for the Government, which I will put to the Minister. What are the full system costs associated with a net zero power grid by 2030? Will the Government confirm that they still plan to save households £300 a year on their energy bills? What baseline are they using—is it from the election? How do they plan to balance the urgent need for rapid decarbonisation with the development of emerging energy technologies? Will they support some of the innovative technologies that I mentioned or ones with longer lead times, such as nuclear? Will they explore alternatives to large-scale pylon construction, such as under- grounding and undersea cables, to protect communities and landscapes? Will they commit at the very least to match the community benefit regime set out by the previous Conservative Government of up to £10,000 off energy bills over 10 years for families in areas that have new energy infrastructure? How we achieve this transition matters to all our constituents as it affects our natural world, our energy security and everybody’s energy bills. It is essential that it delivers real benefits to the communities most affected by renewable energy projects. We need to ensure that those communities are not just sites for energy generation but true beneficiaries, most importantly through lower energy bills. The Government’s rushed approach risks sacrificing long-term gains for short-term targets, leaving rural communities to bear the brunt of the costs without the promised savings. The Opposition believe in a balanced approach in which the latest technologies are harnessed, communities are listened to and grid capacity is strengthened without degrading our natural landscape. We should support innovative solutions and new technology while focusing on lower energy bills and decarbonising the energy grid. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who campaigned like a stalwart in opposition but now finds himself on the Front Bench in government—I congratulate him on his post, by the way.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) on bringing forward this important debate. He raised this subject in his maiden speech, so he is clearly passionate about it. As someone who has been here for 14 years, it is a great pleasure to hear so many newly elected MPs bringing fresh perspectives to the House. Parliament is a better place for new MPs coming in and sharing their experiences; two minutes is not enough for some of these speeches. In his maiden speech, the hon. Member raised valid concerns about the industrialisation of the countryside, which is an issue that all of us, certainly on the Conservative Benches, have consistently guarded against. Our belief is that the need for renewable energy must be balanced with the preservation of rural landscapes, ensuring that development is sustainable and respectful of local communities. Aside from his desire to see money flow back into communities, that is the only way we will get the public to support any plans for net zero and a decarbonised energy grid, as we heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). Unfortunately, the new Government immediately began to torment rural communities in their crusade for carbon neutrality by 2030 by removing key protections from the national planning policy framework just days after the election. Those provisions required developers to demonstrate that onshore wind projects had community support and that local planning impacts were properly addressed. In the new Secretary of State’s first week, he disregarded the previous Secretary of State’s legal planning guidance, which stated that the best and most versatile agricultural land must be avoided for new solar farm applications and that the cumulative impact of many solar farm applications must be considered together. Those decisions by the new Labour Government undermine the very communities that bear the burden of hosting new energy infrastructure while ensuring minimal benefit. Even more concerningly, we understand that the Government intend to consult on bringing large onshore wind proposals into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, which would further centralise decision making and diminish local input. It is vital that the Government listen to the views and concerns of local communities about onshore wind. Residents should have a say in projects that directly affect their environment and not be sidelined by top-down diktats from Westminster. We must ensure that local voices are heard and that community consent remains central to the planning process for renewable energy projects. I also note the previous Government’s approach to community benefits and our commitment to ensuring that communities hosting vital energy projects were directly rewarded. We announced plans that people living near transmission infrastructure could receive up to £1,000 per year in electricity bill discounts—I am not sure it was per year, actually—providing meaningful financial relief to local households. In addition to those savings, we announced that funds would be available for local projects, empowering communities to invest in the initiatives that matter most to them, whether that is improving local parks, enhancing energy efficiency or supporting education programmes for young people. We had intended to publish guidance this year on making that a reality, so this debate is timely in allowing the Minister to give an update on all those plans. When it comes to the impact of new grid infrastructure, pylons across much of our countryside will concern our residents most, and Labour’s accelerated push for pylons across rural landscapes threatens to blight our countryside. The rush to meet unrealistic targets will impose unnecessary visual and environmental costs on rural Britain, with little regard for the long-term impact on our natural beauty. The National Energy System Operator, formerly known as the National Grid, recently published a report that says that while grid enlargement by 2030 means pylons, grid enlargement by 2034 allows enough time to underground those connections and, at the same time, provide £600 million of savings in grid delivery. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), highlighted during the election campaign that our party remains committed to protecting our landscapes. We propose learning from Germany where underground power lines have become the default presumption in designated areas such as national parks. That approach not only preserves the character of those unique places, but respects the wishes of local communities. Crucially, it could save bill payers money in the long term. Over the last decade, technological advances have made it increasingly feasible to bury power lines, especially in sensitive areas. Unlike the new Government, we would have undertaken a rapid review to assess the advantages of alternative network technologies compared with overhead pylons. By exploring options such as underground cables and other innovative technologies, we can achieve energy grid decarbonisation without the impact on our countryside that Labour is apparently prepared to accept. It is vital that we approach the energy transition with a clear vision that balances that transition with the need to protect our countryside and safeguard community interests. Labour’s plans seem short-sighted and fail to strike that balance. Although we have real concerns regarding the Government’s plans for the countryside, I am extremely supportive of technologies that could have real community benefits—those that are innovative and easy to deliver, and that produce cheaper clean energy. I recently met experts from the University of Oxford and Oxford Photovoltaics, or Oxford PV, to discuss breakthroughs in solar power generation. They are working incredibly hard to produce lightweight solar panels so that the roofs of factories and warehouses can be used for solar panels without having to reinforce the building underneath.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Draft Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I was rather hoping on my debut on a Delegated Legislation Committee to use soaring rhetoric and make a fantastic speech, but actually there is very little to say, and I am sure the Committee would be delighted if I kept my words to under 30 seconds. The regulations address a technical point arising from the Energy Act 2023 and follow on from the ambitions of the previous Government. This is a necessary measure to clarify the technical detail of how big the maximum fine can be, and we are 100% behind it.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Zero Carbon Electricity System · Hansard source

  More

  Not only is the Secretary of State a very good looking fellow, but we in this House all know that he is an incredibly hard-working and very open Minister, as indeed are his whole team. So I know that the reason he has not replied to my letter of 11 September is that he and his team will be working their socks off to get a full and open answer to all my questions. He has already made reference to one of my colleagues and said that he will produce “in due course” a full systems cost analysis. May I stress that it is incredibly important that we in this House have that systems cost analysis as soon as possible, so that not only can we analyse his ambitious plans for carbon-neutral targets, but we can also explain to our constituents exactly how much it will cost them in their bills to deliver his target?

• 10 Sept 2024 · COP29: UK Priorities · Hansard source

  More

  I will make progress, because I do not want to go round in circles. Although is right that we continue to lead on climate action, it is also crucial to consider how the cost of these measures is distributed over the long term. We face significant indirect impacts, such as disruptions to global supply chains affecting trade, the rising cost of imported goods, and changes in migration from regions heavily affected by climate change, as we have heard from other Members. How will the Government weigh those challenges against the need to grow the British economy? I also want to draw Members’ attention to the briefing published by the Local Government Association ahead of this debate. Local councils are directly responsible for 2% to 5% of local emissions, and they can influence up to 80% of emissions through their roles in housing, transport and energy. Their leadership in place-shaping community engagement is vital. From retrofitting homes and implementing active travel programmes to investing in flood prevention and creating green jobs, councils are actively working to address climate risks and promote sustainability. To empower local government further, the LGA has proposed a number of core initiatives for the new Government. Key to these are a renewed local climate action delivery programme to provide a clear framework for local and national collaboration on climate action. I hope the Minister will update Members on how the Government can work with councils and communities to deliver a grassroots net zero plan, not just one that is internationally driven. We know that Baku and COP29 will be focused on climate finance and a vital new deal on the global response. I think all Members appreciate that developing countries are often the most vulnerable to climate impacts. They require significant support to transition to clean energy, build resilient infrastructure and protect their communities from the effects of climate change. The new collective quantified goals on climate finance are set to replace the previous target of $100 billion per year. They rightly aim to provide a more ambitious and equitable finance network framework for developing countries. However, success will depend on clear guidelines, transparent reporting and inclusive negotiations that consider the needs of all countries, including those with emerging economies. With that in mind, there are several key questions that I am sure Members would appreciate answers on ahead of the negotiations in Baku in November. The new collective quantified goal aims to provide a more ambitious financial framework for developing countries, but the UK Government need to clarify their specific financial commitment. How much will the UK pledge, and over what timeframe? How will that align with the financial needs identified by developing countries? Public finance alone will not be sufficient to meet the vast financial needs of developing countries for climate action, so what role do the Government see private finance playing in meeting our climate targets? Do they see an opportunity for the City of London to develop itself as a world leader in private finance for green initiatives? Outside COP29, how will the UK advocate for reforms within international financial institutions such as the World Bank and development banks to channel more finance towards low carbon, climate resilient development in developing countries? With new nationally determined contributions due shortly after COP29, which diplomatic and strategic measures will the UK employ to encourage other nations—particularly major emitters—to set more ambitious and actionable targets for reducing emissions in line with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C? I am sure that the new Government will continue the previous Government’s efforts to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in delivering net zero across the globe. The Minister will agree that it remains vital for the UK to meet the commitments set out in the Paris agreement. We must remain committed to reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change, yet we must also be honest about the cost and practicalities of achieving these goals. In the previous Government, we were honest about the need for a pragmatic and proportionate net zero strategy that put British families first while maintaining our global leadership on climate action. Opposition Members will of course continue to hold the Government to account on these issues, and urge Ministers to ensure that climate policies are ambitious but achievable, balancing environmental, economic and social needs.

• 10 Sept 2024 · COP29: UK Priorities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic chap, and we are absolutely agreed on this. I urge him and other Members to join my all-party parliamentary group for energy studies, where we are looking at exactly this stuff, which is incredibly important. This brief discussion illustrates that it is difficult to ensure that energy can be delivered in the way that it is wanted and when it is in demand. That is the problem with energy, and that is what we have to get right.

• 10 Sept 2024 · COP29: UK Priorities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Dr Huq, and to respond to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), who gave a passionate speech. I have been a Member of Parliament for 14 years, and it is a great joy to see so many new Members present for the debate and contributing to it. All the speeches so far have been by new Members, with the exception of that by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—a regular feature that new Members will get to know well. Parliaments need to refresh, and we have seen a great refreshment over the last election. It is a delight to respond to some very passionate and thoughtful speeches. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall raised a point that we all agree on, and which is the most important thing to remember: all of us in every part of this House want to achieve net zero, become carbon-neutral and get to a point where we are not relying on fossil fuels; but at the end of the day, we have to look at how we achieve that. It is the detail that I suspect we will find ourselves disagreeing on. As we discuss the future of our climate commitments, it is essential that we recognise the substantial progress that the Conservative Government made over the last few years. There have been a lot of speeches about how we have not done well, but I remind the House that we had some successes. From 2010, the Conservative Government led the way on climate change by making the UK the first major economy to legislate a 2050 net zero emissions target. We achieved a remarkable feat: the UK cut its emissions by 50% between 1990 and 2022, while growing the economy by 79%. That is a clear demonstration that we can achieve economic growth while reducing our carbon footprint—a very important point. It is worth putting that in perspective. During the same period, France reduced its emissions by only 23%, and the USA saw no change in its emissions between 1990 and 2021. The independent Committee on Climate Change affirmed that our net zero target was feasible, deliverable and could be met at the same cost that was estimated for our previous target of an 80% reduction. Since the election, there has been much discussion on the plans to make the grid carbon-neutral by 2030, yet since coming to power the new Labour Government have been relatively quiet on their plans for net zero targets—something that I hope the Minister will change today. We are looking at net zero, not making the grid carbon-neutral, but if the Government’s plans to decarbonise the energy grid are anything to go by, we could face the risk of being over-ambitious. That means they may leave working families faced with the prospects of picking up the bill, and I hope the Minister today will be honest with the public about the costs and the trade-offs that will be involved. The Opposition believe it is vital that the Government take a more pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach, to ensure sustained public support for our goals. That is an important point—we have to win the support of the public in doing this. Otherwise, the current Government may find—as we did—that if they get things wrong, there may be a change in Government and a different approach could be brought in by an electorate who do not necessarily understand the technicalities of achieving net zero. Before I go into the latest rounds of negotiations in Baku in November, I want to reflect quickly on our global leadership, as well as the success we had at COP26 in Glasgow. It is worth mentioning that Alok Sharma, who was the president, took his seat in the House of Lords yesterday. He attended Cabinet in the last Government and acted as a quasi climate envoy—a point that a number of people have raised. So we did have somebody championing the climate in Cabinet, and he is now in the House of Lords and will continue doing so. The historic Glasgow climate pact ensured that we kept alive the 1.5 degree commitment. Since the UK took over the COP presidency, over 90% of the world’s GDP is now covered by net zero commitments, and that is up from 30%. More than 153 countries have put forward new 2030 nationally determined contributions, which effectively amount to climate plans. Record levels of finance have been pledged to help countries adapt to the effects of climate change through the adaptation fund and the least-developed country fund, both of which were established under the UK presidency. Finally, after six years of negotiations, we confirmed the Paris rulebook, which sets out the instructions and products needed to fully implement the Paris agreement on climate change. Looking ahead to COP29, we need to focus on balancing our ambitious climate goals with the realities faced by British families and businesses. As a Conservative Government, that meant that we were committed to practical adjustments where necessary, but British families still want to know where a Labour Government stand with the net zero plans. Will they stand by their manifesto commitment to reverse the extension on the ban of petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035? Will they commit to moving homes from gas boilers to heat pumps? How will they help landlords in getting homes ready for their new minimum energy performance certificate requirements? How will they manage to maintain energy security and independence for the UK while banning the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea? I know that point has been raised on many occasions, and the co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), raised a very important point about Rosebank and what is going on in the North sea. While the hon. Lady was making her speech, I checked how the grid was using energy. At 9.45 am we were using about 30 GW of power. Wind accounted for 37.5% of that, which is fantastic, but gas was 17%, nuclear was 16% and solar was 7.5%. We were importing 16.3% from Denmark—where the state of green energy is fantastic—Norway, France, Holland and Belgium. The bottom line is that we all want to get rid of fossil fuels, but we do not want to be reliant on foreign fossil fuels. That is a vulnerability, and that is why we have to be pragmatic. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point about getting away from Rosebank, but we do not want to be importing from Russia. We want to have security as we transition to net zero. That is a really important point. In his speech on nuclear, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) raised the most important point about this: what we need is dispatchable baseload power. We must have dispatchable baseload power, and wind and solar do not provide that.

• 10 Sept 2024 · COP29: UK Priorities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

• 10 Sept 2024 · COP29: UK Priorities · Hansard source

  More

  Let me quickly respond to that point, but it is great to get a debate going. Dispatchability and baseload are crucial, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right: nuclear is baseload, but gas is dispatchable. It is important to be able to switch on and off, because one has to be able to take the wind when it is blowing.

• 4 Sept 2024 · Space Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Space Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Before I start, I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Everything the Minister has said so far is music to my ears. I hope to carry on as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space, as I was in the last Parliament. One criticism that the all-party group had of the Government then was although the space strategy was a very good manifesto, it did not stack up to being a strategy. Everything the Minister has talked about in relation to the commercialisation of space is really important, but the strategy needs detail. He will not be able to answer this question immediately, but could he consider, as he gets more involved in his portfolio, looking into more details on the strategy in order to make it more than just a manifesto, so that businesses can really get their teeth into the industry?