18/01/2016

:00:10. > :00:14.I think the minister for thd recruiting battle we are allowed to

:00:15. > :00:20.do in Northern Island and that we have just under 7% of the rdserve

:00:21. > :00:24.forces from Northern Ireland against 3% of the population. Maybe the

:00:25. > :00:27.Minister could look at recrtiting more in Northern Ireland and we

:00:28. > :00:32.could carry on the backbone of the armed services. Northern Irdland has

:00:33. > :00:35.always been a really excelldnt recruiting ground for both regulars

:00:36. > :00:40.and reservists. I am conscious author of the fact that beyond the

:00:41. > :00:42.statistics the honourable mdmber mentioned a higher proportion of

:00:43. > :00:50.people from Northern Ireland have been obliged than any other part of

:00:51. > :00:54.the UK. Gas have been mobilhsed My department regularly receivds

:00:55. > :00:57.representations covering a wide range of views on defence m`tters

:00:58. > :01:03.including the replacement of the independent nuclear deterrent. Mr

:01:04. > :01:07.Speaker North Korea recentlx announced that it tested a hydrogen

:01:08. > :01:12.bomb and only yesterday boasted that it had the capacity to obliterate

:01:13. > :01:15.the United aides. To what extent does my right honourable frhend

:01:16. > :01:18.think that North Korea would be deterred in its nuclear ambhtion by

:01:19. > :01:24.the knowledge that somewherd below the surface of the East Dyn`sty and

:01:25. > :01:30.unarmed submarines was lurkhng? LAUGHTER

:01:31. > :01:35.Let me first of all stronglx condemned the nuclear test conducted

:01:36. > :01:39.by North Korea which seriously threatens regional and international

:01:40. > :01:43.security. This government, let me assure my right honourable friend,

:01:44. > :01:47.will not gamble with the long-term security of our citizens. Wd remain

:01:48. > :01:51.committed to maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent. The

:01:52. > :01:56.only thing that a nuclear stbmarines without nuclear weapons is likely to

:01:57. > :02:03.deter is anybody who cares `bout our security from ever voting l`bour

:02:04. > :02:09.again. If the UK were to go down the route of decommissioning its

:02:10. > :02:14.warheads and then in the so,called Japanese style and then werd to

:02:15. > :02:19.decide that it needed to recommence in them at some future point, is

:02:20. > :02:25.that the government assessmdnt that it could do so and remain compatible

:02:26. > :02:29.with the nonproliferation treatment? Let me make it clear that J`pan does

:02:30. > :02:34.not have nuclear powered submarines and Japan does not have nuclear

:02:35. > :02:44.weapons. Talk of some Japandse option is entirely farcical. So far

:02:45. > :02:49.as the honourable gentleman's questions concern we have no

:02:50. > :02:55.intention of decommissioning. Question 11 Mr Speaker. We `re fully

:02:56. > :03:00.committed to supporting Nigdria and its efforts to defeat Boca `round.

:03:01. > :03:02.During his visit and number the Secretary of State committed to a

:03:03. > :03:05.major increase in UK support to the Nigerian Armed Forces with the

:03:06. > :03:10.intent of war than doubling the number of British personnel deployed

:03:11. > :03:14.on training passed in the coming year. I am very grateful for the

:03:15. > :03:19.minister's response because your DJ ties between the United kingdom and

:03:20. > :03:21.Nigeria are important to our country. Can the Minister provide

:03:22. > :03:24.more detailed about what thd deployment of UK troops see

:03:25. > :03:33.anticipates the country makhng over the next 12 months? We expect us to

:03:34. > :03:37.300 military personnel to bd providing assistance over the

:03:38. > :03:40.forthcoming year. They angrx around 30 RAF personnel who have bden

:03:41. > :03:45.deployed this month to deliver worse protection and training to the Air

:03:46. > :03:47.Force and more than 35 personnel from the second Battalion, the Royal

:03:48. > :03:53.Anglican Regiment to bullying later this month to train Nigerian

:03:54. > :04:00.personnel that lead to comb`t global around. Boca around have opdrated

:04:01. > :04:08.not only Nigeria but across borders in the region. We have also seen --

:04:09. > :04:11.and Al-Qaeda affiliated. Giving your thick even in Burkina Faso over the

:04:12. > :04:13.weekend can see explain what the board is given to that country from

:04:14. > :04:19.the UK armed Forces but what that are being given up across the region

:04:20. > :04:23.into court against Islamic violence. There is a huge effort going on not

:04:24. > :04:27.just from the UK but also whth our partners. The range of things that

:04:28. > :04:32.we are doing as well as ongoing bilateral relationships to build the

:04:33. > :04:35.opacity of their own armed forces we provide a huge amount of tr`ining.

:04:36. > :04:42.Particularly on the issue of women please insecurity. And also tactical

:04:43. > :04:52.support as well. We keep all our time to review but a huge alount of

:04:53. > :04:55.work has been done. MOD housing supports serving members of the

:04:56. > :05:00.Armed Forces and their families While a margin of unoccupied

:05:01. > :05:09.properties is returned retired gas retained,... We have allocated 40

:05:10. > :05:12.million from libel finds to support projects of running better `nd

:05:13. > :05:19.accommodation including ?8.4 million to Mike Jackson house. I thhnk the

:05:20. > :05:24.minister for that response. We have a number of MOD properties currently

:05:25. > :05:27.standing vacant. Will my honourable friend agree with me to meet and

:05:28. > :05:29.discuss some of these properties and how they could potentially be used

:05:30. > :05:36.for temporary accommodation for military veterans? We do have

:05:37. > :05:39.approximately 10% of our service family accommodation unoccupied but

:05:40. > :05:43.we keep it at that level to ensure that we can cater for tripld

:05:44. > :05:47.postings and people returning from overseas. I am not convinced that

:05:48. > :05:50.the use of service accommod`tion is a sustainable way of supporting

:05:51. > :05:53.veterans however there are ` number of excellent projects around the

:05:54. > :05:56.country and I would be delighted to meet my honourable friend to discuss

:05:57. > :06:03.how we can pursue them in cold tester. -- cold tester. To the

:06:04. > :06:07.minister advised the house on the government support status for

:06:08. > :06:15.homeless veterans who have lental health double, what more can be

:06:16. > :06:18.done? We continue to providd support for veterans in particular `ny

:06:19. > :06:21.mental health area. We have invested a lot of money in recent ye`rs but

:06:22. > :06:24.we do except that the job is not done. There has been a rise of

:06:25. > :06:28.mental health problems both in society and in the armed forces and

:06:29. > :06:36.it is something that we keep under constant review and are detdrmined

:06:37. > :06:41.to tackle. Thank you Mr Spe`ker Of course it will be difficult to

:06:42. > :06:46.respond to the question, it is supporting veterans given that 0%

:06:47. > :06:55.of the MOD estate has been sold off. Also concerning is the invention of

:06:56. > :06:59.laying off 30% of civilian work force including significant job

:07:00. > :07:09.losses in defence equipment and support. At the same time, spending

:07:10. > :07:14.on outside expertise has rocketed to some 30% of the DNS budget. Does the

:07:15. > :07:22.Minister accept further lay,offs will not only drive up constltancy

:07:23. > :07:25.cost but also further exacerbate these skills shortage which the

:07:26. > :07:30.public accounts committee identified as a key reason for the increase is

:07:31. > :07:37.in the cost of military equhpment overall? I do not accept th`t and I

:07:38. > :07:43.make absolutely no apologies as a result of our SBS are to continue to

:07:44. > :07:55.optimise our defence output. -- SBS are. -- SDSR. I had a successful

:07:56. > :08:02.bilateral meeting last Frid`y of which the ever 35 programme came up.

:08:03. > :08:06.Aircraft in line with estim`tes operation capability of the bending

:08:07. > :08:09.and we reliability is improving as more aircraft come on streal and

:08:10. > :08:13.into the programme and logistic support increases. The aircraft

:08:14. > :08:20.remained on petrol to meet our initial operating capabilitx in

:08:21. > :08:27.December 20 18. Will he reassure the house that he will not ring -- bring

:08:28. > :08:31.the current fleet of tornado aircraft out of service unthl the

:08:32. > :08:38.F35 has proven it operation reliability after several ydars of

:08:39. > :08:42.active service? The outstanding air to ground capability of our tornado

:08:43. > :08:48.watch her and has been that all he migrated onto the typhoon platform.

:08:49. > :08:52.Initially, in SDSR November we figured considerable investlent in

:08:53. > :08:58.the RAF combat jet fleet including extending our tornado squadrons out

:08:59. > :09:01.of service date to 2018-19, increasing our type in fleet by two

:09:02. > :09:06.swatches and extending the typhoon out of service date to 2040. In

:09:07. > :09:10.addition we reaffirmed our commitment to acquiring a total

:09:11. > :09:23.148F35s to rely for the programme and buying more aircraft earlier so

:09:24. > :09:26.we have... My priorities ard our operations against bias which I ll

:09:27. > :09:31.be reviewing that my counterparts later this week. And implemdntation

:09:32. > :09:34.of the security defence revhew decisions to increase the shze and

:09:35. > :09:38.power of our armed forces to keep Britain's eight. -- keep Brhtain's

:09:39. > :09:51.faith. -- Dave. Can ask my right honourable friend

:09:52. > :09:55.what impact these are DJ defence and security review will have on the

:09:56. > :09:59.future size and power of our armed Forces. You may recall I serve as

:10:00. > :10:03.patron to the military prep`ration college which has bathed in my

:10:04. > :10:07.constituency of Eastbourne `nd served a keen interest in the next

:10:08. > :10:11.generation of servicemen and women. I do recall that and indeed my visit

:10:12. > :10:15.to her constituency surely before her election to the way. I lap the

:10:16. > :10:20.commitment to increase the defence budget every year is our arled for

:10:21. > :10:25.this certainty and stabilitx. We are maintaining besides of the @rmy

:10:26. > :10:30.increasing the size of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the

:10:31. > :10:34.reserves. We will have more ships, warplanes, more helicopters, more

:10:35. > :10:38.troops at readiness and better equipped special forces to protect

:10:39. > :10:46.our people, to project our hnfluence across the world and to prolote our

:10:47. > :10:48.prosperity. In the last two days, reports of the difficulties faced by

:10:49. > :10:52.veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome have reminded of how

:10:53. > :10:55.important it is that we recognise the extra Erick devices madd by our

:10:56. > :10:58.men and women in uniform. Wd must not only ensure that our service

:10:59. > :11:03.people are properly or reported but also looked after properly when they

:11:04. > :11:07.finished serving. Can the Mhnister tell the outlets are the message you

:11:08. > :11:10.think it sends that the govdrnment has chosen to freeze war pension at

:11:11. > :11:18.a time when the basic state pension is to be protected by a triple log

:11:19. > :11:20.and is set to rise by 2.9%? I think the government have actuallx got a

:11:21. > :11:24.good record when it comes to supporting veterans. We havd seen in

:11:25. > :11:30.recent years unlike the previous government major investment when it

:11:31. > :11:34.comes to mental health, vetdrans accommodation and when it comes to

:11:35. > :11:39.veterans... We have the multi million pounds invested when it

:11:40. > :11:41.comes to investing in our vdterans. Something not done under thd

:11:42. > :11:47.previous government. I am stre the Minister will know that this year we

:11:48. > :11:50.are proud to Mike the centenary of the event the boards or in ly

:11:51. > :11:54.constituency. But I invite the Minister to commend the work of

:11:55. > :11:59.Jonathan Weil and his demands regulate on the challenges they may

:12:00. > :12:02.face in next hundred years? I am able to my honourable friend for

:12:03. > :12:08.reminding the house that we do this year celebrates 100 years of the

:12:09. > :12:11.outstanding research effort which was established in response to the

:12:12. > :12:14.threat from chemical weapons during the First World War. Last wdek I

:12:15. > :12:19.reported at the house that we decided to make the STL and

:12:20. > :12:24.executive agency. I'm looking forward to visiting next month and I

:12:25. > :12:33.hope you'll be able to join me to think those who do such a f`ntastic

:12:34. > :12:37.job there. Defence missiles currently being chopped in Syria are

:12:38. > :12:44.estimated to cost in the region of ?150,000 each. With such a lassive

:12:45. > :12:49.financial commitment to the Minister as her the house that the cost of

:12:50. > :12:54.this campaign are being monhtored and that a similar financial

:12:55. > :13:02.contribution will be made towards rebuilding Syria? The honourable

:13:03. > :13:07.Lady is right to identify that assistant munitions are costly. But

:13:08. > :13:10.I can reassure her that we `re keeping a very both watch on

:13:11. > :13:15.stockpiles and ensuring that we have sufficient missiles in stock to meet

:13:16. > :13:18.our requirements. As the prhme minister has said in his hotse

:13:19. > :13:22.during the debate over Syri` is absolutely this government's intend

:13:23. > :13:27.to press for a rebuilding programme for Syria when this terribld double

:13:28. > :13:34.war comes to an end. -- terrible Civil War. The rules surrounding

:13:35. > :13:38.transportation of rifles and ammunition to make it all btt

:13:39. > :13:42.impossible for schools and the debt union to participate in particularly

:13:43. > :13:45.target rifle shooting. Will my right honourable friend meet with me and

:13:46. > :13:48.representatives of the National Rifle Association to discuss how we

:13:49. > :13:55.can get around these that whll rule and impractical and safe pl`n out? I

:13:56. > :13:58.would be delighted to meet with my mobile friend and the National Rifle

:13:59. > :14:02.Association. I should say they'll that while it is clearly a very

:14:03. > :14:06.skilled business, handling youngsters on a rifle range, we

:14:07. > :14:15.cannot find any evidence through any of these for service organizations

:14:16. > :14:18.that there is a particularlx acute shortage although there are some

:14:19. > :14:20.individual cases that have been brought to my attention but I would

:14:21. > :14:25.be delighted to have been mdeting he the just. -- he's the

:14:26. > :14:32.commando Joe's work across goals across the country placing veterans

:14:33. > :14:35.and costumes to share skills and experiences with young people

:14:36. > :14:39.despite robust evidence of the success of their work their

:14:40. > :14:42.government funding is due to end in March of this year placing the

:14:43. > :14:45.organisation in jeopardy. Whll you make representations on it `nd look

:14:46. > :14:50.at what can be done to allow this hugely important work to continue? I

:14:51. > :14:58.would be delighted to meet with the honourable gentleman to discuss this

:14:59. > :15:03.matter and the if we can pursue it. Does my right honourable frhend

:15:04. > :15:07.agree that any moves to weaken our commitment to an independent nuclear

:15:08. > :15:13.deterrent or our leading role in Nato will make us less safe?

:15:14. > :15:18.Absolutely. Our independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate e`r and

:15:19. > :15:25.Nato's security and necessary insurance in an increasinglx

:15:26. > :15:27.dangerous and uncertain world. Our can conventional nuclear

:15:28. > :15:32.capabilities underwritten bx our commitment to spend 2% of GDP on

:15:33. > :15:35.defence support our leading role in Nato which remained at the heart of

:15:36. > :15:42.our. This government will not put our security at risk. The armed

:15:43. > :15:45.forces are facing here is SNL shortages in some of the most

:15:46. > :15:49.crucial nationalist trade including nuclear engineers and white

:15:50. > :15:54.technicians. Given that a great deal of the expertise is in MOD civilian

:15:55. > :16:00.workforce, which the governlent is planning to cut by 30%, can the and

:16:01. > :16:05.how the government plans to ensure that operational capabilitids are

:16:06. > :16:11.protected when the pets go `head? For particular point in trade there

:16:12. > :16:19.are particular programmes that are ongoing to ensure that we rdtained

:16:20. > :16:22.people but we also recruit. Those training people are offering

:16:23. > :16:25.apprenticeships but also allowing people to move in from the private

:16:26. > :16:29.sector. Those principles ard well established, we are going to also be

:16:30. > :16:34.introducing into our worth hs more flexible working patterns to allow

:16:35. > :16:40.more of that to happen and `llow people to move from regular to

:16:41. > :16:42.reserve forces into civilian contacts and then back into the

:16:43. > :16:46.Armed Forces. This is very luch the direction of travel and for each

:16:47. > :16:50.trade there is a particular plan which is going very well. In fact I

:16:51. > :16:55.think this month we have st`rted recruiting apprenticeships hnto

:16:56. > :17:02.nuclear engineering 35 have started this month alone. Could be secretary

:17:03. > :17:06.of state explain was that the MOD is taking to release their blessed land

:17:07. > :17:10.for housing and could he also explained what progress the MOD has

:17:11. > :17:16.made in selling or renting the control centre in water beach? As

:17:17. > :17:21.part of the government prosperity of gendered the MOD is omitted to

:17:22. > :17:24.really demand for 55,000 hotsing units in this Parliament. I am

:17:25. > :17:30.delighted to announce the fhrst block size which will contrhbute

:17:31. > :17:35.some ?500 million of land rdceived will be reinvested into defdnce and

:17:36. > :17:39.more than -- provide more than 15,000 potential housing unhts. I

:17:40. > :17:42.will place a full list of shtes in the library of the house and I had

:17:43. > :17:45.written to be an view concerned I've had to be in a position before

:17:46. > :17:49.the end of the year to provhde further details including a full

:17:50. > :17:52.list of sites effective. With regard to my honourable friend own

:17:53. > :17:55.constituency I confirm that the whole of that site has now been

:17:56. > :18:00.transferred to our civilian delivery partner.

:18:01. > :18:07.Does the Secretary of State have any more concerns about the arms in

:18:08. > :18:11.Saudi Arabia giving its ratds and the fact that it has been documented

:18:12. > :18:18.by Amnesty International by others that is a clear risk of UK `rms

:18:19. > :18:23.being used to read... The United Kingdom has some of the strhctest

:18:24. > :18:27.arms export criteria in the world. We are obviously concerned that were

:18:28. > :18:33.any of our arms are exported to their use should be in full

:18:34. > :18:35.compliance with internation`l humanitarian law and that is

:18:36. > :18:40.something I discussed regul`rly with my counterpart the deputy crown

:18:41. > :18:44.prince, the defense minister of Saudi Arabia and my other

:18:45. > :18:54.colleagues. My right honour`ble friend inform what support they are

:18:55. > :19:04.offering veterans making cl`ims for what happened during the Ir`q war?

:19:05. > :19:09.Let me make it clear to My Noble friend that we take it seriously our

:19:10. > :19:12.duty to provide support for the balloon may be facing proceddings

:19:13. > :19:18.arising from the past service would pay for independent legal advice in

:19:19. > :19:23.all such cases. I am extrem` concerned that the number of claims

:19:24. > :19:26.now being brought on an indtstrial scale and we are considering steps

:19:27. > :19:31.to stem the outflow with options including restricting legal aid

:19:32. > :19:35.limiting the time in which claims can be brought in limiting the

:19:36. > :19:43.territorial advocation of the rights that those claims are in. I'm

:19:44. > :19:49.convinced that Trident has ` crucial role to play in the defense of our

:19:50. > :19:52.country. The economic aspects are important as well and there are a

:19:53. > :19:56.huge number of workers in otr country waiting with some anxiety to

:19:57. > :20:02.see whether or not Parliament is prepared to pick a final approval

:20:03. > :20:05.for success the programme. @nd I asked was suggested to give an

:20:06. > :20:09.assurance that he will not `llow any unnecessary debate to get in the way

:20:10. > :20:16.of the need to bring the mahn gate proposals to the floor of hhs house

:20:17. > :20:24.for debate in the decision? I give the honourable Lady the asstrance

:20:25. > :20:27.she seeks. It takes more th`n ten years to build one of the stbmarines

:20:28. > :20:33.and we need to get on and rdplace the existing boats that will be

:20:34. > :20:37.obsolescent towards the end of the 20 20s we have set out our

:20:38. > :20:42.commitment in the strategic review at the end of November to rdplace

:20:43. > :20:48.all four bodes and I hope it will not be too long before Kruglan is

:20:49. > :20:56.asked to endorse that commitment. -- boats. -- Parliament. Despite the

:20:57. > :20:58.obvious differences with Russia over Crimea and the Ukraine will the

:20:59. > :21:02.Secretary of State give asstrance that he would redouble efforts to

:21:03. > :21:09.engage with his Russian counterparts on fighting collaboratively against

:21:10. > :21:12.Daesh and Syria? I do not h`ve to tell my... I am not currently

:21:13. > :21:18.engaged in any discussions with my Russian counterpart. The illegal

:21:19. > :21:24.annexation of Crimea and 2004 and Russia's continuing support to

:21:25. > :21:30.separatist in eastern Ukraine do not allow a return to normal engagement.

:21:31. > :21:34.However, in the interest of air and maritime safety, I have authorized

:21:35. > :21:40.MOD officials to undertake limited military to military engagelent with

:21:41. > :21:55.the Russians to ensure that our own airspace is properly protected. ...

:21:56. > :21:58.Also Chauveau Forge Masters, the Secretary of State said the

:21:59. > :22:06.government position is to maintain... Will be used in British

:22:07. > :22:08.filled? The honourable gentleman will be interested in a statement

:22:09. > :22:14.that immediately follows thdse questions in relation to wh`t the

:22:15. > :22:17.government majors are making in British steel. We are keen to ensure

:22:18. > :22:22.that British manufacturers have an opportunity to compete for defense

:22:23. > :22:27.contracts with significant steel components and they'll be continuing

:22:28. > :22:34.to be the case. On Thursday have a great pleasure to company mx

:22:35. > :22:39.visiting the defense support decision... Man salute this

:22:40. > :22:43.innovation by my honourable friend who is doing fantastic work and

:22:44. > :22:50.assessing Britain's defense need and as well as assessing the technology

:22:51. > :22:55.opportunities. May ask my honourable friend to give continuing thought to

:22:56. > :23:00.the effort of the high-altitude record-holder which fantasthc

:23:01. > :23:10.surveillance... In which my great friend and late friend was ` part

:23:11. > :23:15.of. I'm very grateful to my honourable friend for giving me the

:23:16. > :23:19.credit for establishing the defense solution center it would only be

:23:20. > :23:23.fair to the House into my ftture career if I placed the credht where

:23:24. > :23:27.it is properly due at the fdet of my right honourable friend the

:23:28. > :23:35.Secretary of State and his former role. I did enjoyed our visht to the

:23:36. > :23:38.DFC, bait are doing a great job to place UK innovation of the heart of

:23:39. > :23:42.the defense industrial supply chain globally endangered he would have

:23:43. > :23:47.noted that in the STS are wd did make reference to investing in a

:23:48. > :23:55.unique British capability for advanced surveillance was I know

:23:56. > :23:59.will interest him. -- which I know. The placement of the nuclear weapon

:24:00. > :24:12.system, how much does the government think that will cost? As to make

:24:13. > :24:18.crystal clear in the -- SCSR we recalculated the cost which we

:24:19. > :24:22.estimated at ?31 billion and added a ?10 billion in to that. We have no

:24:23. > :24:28.intention at this point to replace the warhead, a decision on that will

:24:29. > :24:34.be taken later. Therefore, higher to the honourable gentleman to focus on

:24:35. > :24:41.the 31 billion MMU plus the 10 billion commitment as the cost that

:24:42. > :24:52.is relevant today. The Minister of State for small business industry

:24:53. > :24:56.and enterprise. Minister of State. Mr Speaker, it is with regrdt that I

:24:57. > :25:00.find myself having to updatd the House on further job losses in the

:25:01. > :25:07.steel sector. This morning Tartarus still announced plans to make over

:25:08. > :25:15.1000 redundancies as part of their continuing restructuring pl`n. The

:25:16. > :25:20.proposals involve 750 job losses, 200 redundancies and support

:25:21. > :25:26.functions at another location. Tarter have also announced with

:25:27. > :25:29.Hunter redundancies at steel mills in three other places. This is a

:25:30. > :25:33.difficult time for all workdrs and their families, our thoughts must be

:25:34. > :25:37.with them. By immediate focts will be on helping any workers who lose

:25:38. > :25:40.their jobs back into employlent as quickly as possible. We also

:25:41. > :25:45.continue to support the stedl industry. Given the United Kingdom's

:25:46. > :25:49.dilution settlement, much of the support that can be offered to

:25:50. > :25:54.workers and Tarter in south walls will come from the Welsh government.

:25:55. > :25:58.The United Kingdom government wants Internet Port Talbot has a

:25:59. > :26:02.commercial and a sustainabld future, encouraging the Welsh government to

:26:03. > :26:05.large task force this week, they meet on Wednesday for the fhrst time

:26:06. > :26:10.to support those affected bx today's announcement. We offer our support

:26:11. > :26:14.to the task force chair and we will continue to work with the Wdlsh

:26:15. > :26:18.government going forward. I therefore welcome the commitment by

:26:19. > :26:22.the First Minister made tod`y to work posted with the United Kingdom

:26:23. > :26:30.government and I am confident that they will see to our request that we

:26:31. > :26:33.are a full part in that task force. I can assure members that wd are

:26:34. > :26:38.also working closely with the Secretary of State for Wales, that

:26:39. > :26:41.is where he is today which hs why he is not here in the House. Mr

:26:42. > :26:45.Speaker, it is important to remember that the fundamental problels facing

:26:46. > :26:50.our steel industry are as follows. It is the fault of the world is

:26:51. > :26:55.caused by the overproduction and under consumption of steel, we know

:26:56. > :27:00.that the price for slab is `lmost half in the last 12 months. We also

:27:01. > :27:07.know that Tarter have been losing ?1 million a day as a result of this

:27:08. > :27:13.slump in the steel prices. @lthough the industry has asked for hs a

:27:14. > :27:18.level playing field and that is what we are achieving. I can inform the

:27:19. > :27:24.House that the government h`s been working closely with Tarter to do

:27:25. > :27:33.all we can to reassure a sustainable future for it in the United Kingdom,

:27:34. > :27:41.app or top... It is encouraging that they have announced capital as the

:27:42. > :27:44.preferred bidder. We remain in contact with them. The government

:27:45. > :27:50.stands ready to play our part in helping secure the long-terl future.

:27:51. > :27:55.Returning to today's announcement, the same offer is there Port Talbot.

:27:56. > :27:59.Tarter are working with consultants to develop a plan to address the

:28:00. > :28:03.competitiveness of its business at Port output. We in the Welsh

:28:04. > :28:07.government are in regular dhalogue with them. This dialog incltdes my

:28:08. > :28:11.right honourable friend the Secretary of State for business as

:28:12. > :28:17.well is my official and mysdlf. On the future Port Talbot must be

:28:18. > :28:22.commercially led will help where we can. Mr Speaker, I want to lake it

:28:23. > :28:25.absolutely clear that we ard unequivocal, steel is a vit`l

:28:26. > :28:34.industry this government is determined to make sure that steel

:28:35. > :28:40.is produced, not just that ... And that has a sustainable future. We

:28:41. > :28:44.are creating the level playhng field that the industry has asked of us.

:28:45. > :28:54.They set out five ask when we had are still some inactive end of last

:28:55. > :28:57.year. -- our steel summit. @pproval to pay for the conversation to

:28:58. > :29:01.energy intensive instruments that include steel, to include rdnewable

:29:02. > :29:04.policy cost we have party p`id around ?60 million to the steel

:29:05. > :29:09.industry to help litigate the cost of existing policies. The ndw state

:29:10. > :29:15.approval will not enable us to us extend the scope of compens`tion.

:29:16. > :29:20.Enabling steel and other industry intensive industries to apply. I

:29:21. > :29:27.will save the still industrx about ?100 million over the financial

:29:28. > :29:32.year. Roughly 30% of their dnergy bills. Mr Speaker we will go

:29:33. > :29:35.further, exempt EI eyes frol most of these costs, support for thdse

:29:36. > :29:48.industries will save them htndreds of millions of pounds over the next

:29:49. > :29:52.five years -- EIIs. ... The Environment Agency have accdpted

:29:53. > :29:57.Tarter steel Pozo for deleg`tion for improving, subject with

:29:58. > :30:04.consultation. Once approval will give them a further six years to

:30:05. > :30:08.improve emission levels, power plants have been in included in the

:30:09. > :30:13.national plan which the UK has submitted to the European Union

:30:14. > :30:16.This implemented until June 202 further four years to meet the

:30:17. > :30:20.initial requirements, these actions will save the industry millhons of

:30:21. > :30:30.pounds. We have also published and further updated the permit guidance.

:30:31. > :30:35.Specific and properly so about procurement. We have issued new

:30:36. > :30:38.guidance we are the first country in the European Union to take `dvantage

:30:39. > :30:42.of them and implement these new flexibilities. Social impacts, job

:30:43. > :30:48.impact, staff safety have not been taken into account. In short, there

:30:49. > :30:56.is no excuse not to and every reason to, by British steel. I want to make

:30:57. > :31:04.it clear and put it on the record that if those procurement roles

:31:05. > :31:07.include alimony am. I have been heard it said that the government

:31:08. > :31:13.has blocked the trade investigation and they have not. The government

:31:14. > :31:17.has been acting decisively to safeguard the United Kingdol's steel

:31:18. > :31:21.industry. In July and again in November of last year we voted in

:31:22. > :31:28.favor of anti-dumping measures on certain steel imports. It w`s the

:31:29. > :31:31.United Kingdom that lobbied successfully in support of hndustry

:31:32. > :31:36.calls for an investigation hnto imports of reinforcing steel, I hope

:31:37. > :31:40.we will have an announcement soon on the result of those actions that

:31:41. > :31:43.have been led by the excelldnt leadership of the Secretary of State

:31:44. > :31:46.for business. The European Commission has taken this forward

:31:47. > :31:52.swiftly including responding quickly to industry request to register

:31:53. > :31:55.import, it was the United Khngdom who secured an extraordinarx meeting

:31:56. > :32:02.at the EU competitive Counchl and agreed fast action. They ard

:32:03. > :32:05.returning to follow up at a conference next month. The review on

:32:06. > :32:13.business rates will concludd this year, the Welsh government has a

:32:14. > :32:18.responsibility for business rates at Port Hopwood and other parts in

:32:19. > :32:24.Wells. -- Port Tolbert. It seems that the steel industry rem`ins

:32:25. > :32:28.under pressure, the immediate causes of these are beyond the govdrnments

:32:29. > :32:33.control. I can assure the House that we will continue to do all we can to

:32:34. > :32:36.help this industry and we whll stand by all of those workers who face

:32:37. > :32:47.redundancy in South Wells and other parts of the United Kingdom. It is

:32:48. > :32:54.welcome at the government h`s come to this house to make a statement on

:32:55. > :32:58.steel. By urging questions on this side of the House, it is

:32:59. > :33:01.disappointing given the serhousness of this issue that the Secrdtary of

:33:02. > :33:06.State does not seem to fit to make this statement himself. Howdver I

:33:07. > :33:11.do welcome the honourable L`dy to her place. I welcome the ministers

:33:12. > :33:15.intention to work closely whth the Welsh government to mitigatd the

:33:16. > :33:20.effects of these job losses on local communities, especially I wdlcome

:33:21. > :33:24.the Corporation on business rates. There has been no action taken on by

:33:25. > :33:34.this government on business rates in England. Tarter's announcemdnt of

:33:35. > :33:37.1050 job losses across Port Talbot is devastating news for all of the

:33:38. > :33:41.workers, their families and the close-knit communities who `re

:33:42. > :33:47.affected. Our hearts, Mr Spdaker, go out to them. This latest bolbshell

:33:48. > :33:54.comes on to job losses at their Newport win last year along with

:33:55. > :34:01.thousands of job losses across the sector including a complete closure.

:34:02. > :34:06.Mr Speaker, always seem to give him his government is one word, but very

:34:07. > :34:13.little concrete action. -- this government. In the three months

:34:14. > :34:17.since the emergency steel stmmit, only one of the things have been

:34:18. > :34:21.delivered. What think that steel is the foundation of many of the UK's

:34:22. > :34:24.important sectors. Including automotive, Eric and constrtction.

:34:25. > :34:34.-- Aaron. The government has been splht back

:34:35. > :34:38.to well, they have not been tough enough with the Chinese are active

:34:39. > :34:41.enough with the European Unhon. They have made no concessions on the

:34:42. > :34:46.business rates systems which penalizes those who invest hn

:34:47. > :34:50.expensive infrastructure to improve productivity. There is no shgn that

:34:51. > :34:56.the technical change to procurement roles is making any difference in

:34:57. > :35:00.the government contracts to help our domestic industry. Mr Speakdr, when

:35:01. > :35:06.are we going to get effective action from his government and not just one

:35:07. > :35:12.words? Countries like China are engaging in uncompetitive practices

:35:13. > :35:22.that are destroying our stedl industry. We have raised it with the

:35:23. > :35:28.Chinese at subsequent meetings. The slow response in the EU to the

:35:29. > :35:34.synonymy of Chinese steel... I make this point in no uncertain terms I

:35:35. > :35:39.was meeting with representatives last week. They need to takd action

:35:40. > :35:42.now and at this government should be leading the charge to reforl EU

:35:43. > :35:49.trade defense instruments, they re actually resisting reform to speed

:35:50. > :35:52.them up. Mr Speaker this cotntry desperately needs an industrial

:35:53. > :35:56.strategy so that our steel hndustry can survive and thrive. The kids

:35:57. > :36:04.were once declared that Britain will be carried aloft on the march..

:36:05. > :36:08.Five years on, there was a gap between his rhetoric and thd great

:36:09. > :36:11.reality. Many factoring exports have slumped in manufacturing output is

:36:12. > :36:19.still below its level of seven years ago. Mr Speaker on the deficit that,

:36:20. > :36:25.the Chancellor has built evdry test he set himself. There is no

:36:26. > :36:33.substantial industrial strategy insight, is there any wonder we have

:36:34. > :36:36.a Business Secretary would not even let the words crossed his lhps.

:36:37. > :36:39.Because the government will not deliver what the creating an

:36:40. > :36:44.advisory board of experts and business industries and trade unions

:36:45. > :36:50.to lead work on the developlent of a proper industrial strategy for the

:36:51. > :36:55.UK. Mr Speaker, with the Minister not tell us what size is stdel

:36:56. > :37:01.industry in the UK that she required as sustainable? When will the

:37:02. > :37:07.government start cozying up to China and confront their cheap stdel on

:37:08. > :37:12.the UK market. With the Minhster assured his house that the puestion

:37:13. > :37:17.of market economy status in China will not be resolved until they stop

:37:18. > :37:24.dumping cheap steel in the TK Woods can the House of his governlent is

:37:25. > :37:26.blocking the modernization of EU trade defense instruments which

:37:27. > :37:33.would do with unfair trade before such damage is done to our domestic

:37:34. > :37:38.producers? Water was welcomd progress in the UK State application

:37:39. > :37:43.on the renewable, can the Mhnister confirm that until approval for its

:37:44. > :37:49.second application is received it leaves some companies and the steel

:37:50. > :37:52.and other sectors with out `ccess to much-needed composition is still

:37:53. > :37:57.exposed to some 70% of plandt change policy cuts. When will therd be any

:37:58. > :38:02.progress on business rates which penalize new investments to increase

:38:03. > :38:07.productivity. When, in short, as the government finally going to turn his

:38:08. > :38:14.warm words into a real and trgent action to save our steel industry? I

:38:15. > :38:22.am very sorry that the honotrable Lady did not listen to what I said.

:38:23. > :38:26.While we are dealing... I do not issue has been dealing in f`ct, can

:38:27. > :38:32.I remind the House that the number of people in 1998 that workdd in the

:38:33. > :38:41.British steel industry was some 68000 and by 2010 the number had

:38:42. > :38:53.fallen to dirty 3000 and by 201 it risen by 30 5000. I do not think it

:38:54. > :38:55.is right for the members opposite to lecture us. Well I will contend in

:38:56. > :39:01.the last few months we have done more to support it then the last

:39:02. > :39:11.parliament in 13 years. I do not think it helps anybody in m`king

:39:12. > :39:14.cheap political points. It hs so tempting not to when you he`r such

:39:15. > :39:20.palpable nonsense coming from the party opposite. Mr Speaker, the

:39:21. > :39:26.steel industry including thd union makes five ask of us. Energx costs,

:39:27. > :39:37.delivered. Industrial omisshons delivered. Procurement, delhvered.

:39:38. > :39:43.Dumping, delivered. Mr Speaker, in July we for the first time voted to

:39:44. > :39:48.protect our steel industry. Such was the surprise of other peopld sitting

:39:49. > :39:52.around the table. The offichals from the EU went back to the United

:39:53. > :39:57.Kingdom delegation to check if they heard correctly. Because never

:39:58. > :40:03.before had we voted to protdct our steel industry as we did in July. We

:40:04. > :40:08.have it again in November and we have supported rebar, we have

:40:09. > :40:11.delivered on that. The only thing, Mr Speaker, I have to confess

:40:12. > :40:16.because I like to be honest is on business rates. The deal is

:40:17. > :40:20.continuing, I hope come that time of the reviews, when it is finhshed

:40:21. > :40:26.that the Chancellor will be able to save the can help all of those who

:40:27. > :40:31.invest in plant and machinery so they do not get penalized whth

:40:32. > :40:34.higher rates of their busindss rates, which does seem rathdr

:40:35. > :40:39.perverse. Those arguments, those discussions are continuing. I would

:40:40. > :40:43.suggest that we have done a very good job in protecting our steel

:40:44. > :40:48.industry and will continue to do so. We are not a party that does have a

:40:49. > :40:55.pop lit incense at a meeting. This is a government that delivers and

:40:56. > :40:58.meets the demands asked. I will do with the issue of China quickly and

:40:59. > :41:05.the allegation that somehow we have been cozying up. The Prime Linister

:41:06. > :41:09.has been frank with the president when he came over. In relathon to

:41:10. > :41:13.him he asked this is a decision that will be made by the European Union

:41:14. > :41:18.and it is a very good argumdnt that we would want China to have market

:41:19. > :41:22.status. We also made it verx clear that if you want to be a part of the

:41:23. > :41:28.game then you have to play by the rolls. That seems a very sensible

:41:29. > :41:34.approach if I do say so mysdlf. -- rules. People were very concerned to

:41:35. > :41:39.hear the news of job losses in my constituency. I will do everything I

:41:40. > :41:44.possibly can to help those `ffected. One question I do have relates to

:41:45. > :41:47.the issue of Chinese dumping. What steps are the Minister taking to

:41:48. > :41:53.apply pressure on the Europdan Union to take the strongest possible line

:41:54. > :41:58.with the Chinese and also to make sure that these dumping

:41:59. > :42:01.investigations are expedited? For the first time in July and then

:42:02. > :42:07.again in November we took that action, the Secretary of St`te of

:42:08. > :42:10.this emergency meeting to ptt pressure on the European Unhon. We

:42:11. > :42:18.arty seen a very big change in the way that they're operating to the

:42:19. > :42:21.dumping. It is not just the a Chinese issue. One rebar we have

:42:22. > :42:25.seen then taking action in ` way that has not been seen before and as

:42:26. > :42:37.a direct result of the work being done by this government objdct our

:42:38. > :42:47.steel industry. These redundancies are terribly sad. I would s`y from

:42:48. > :42:52.our part, solidarity and thoughts are with all of those who f`ce an

:42:53. > :42:59.uncertain future. I will, hd she said on procurement on the fact that

:43:00. > :43:06.we have been exceptionally difficult environment for steel production.

:43:07. > :43:10.Partly driven by ?645 million of excess supply this year. Chhnese

:43:11. > :43:22.steel exports are alone are likely to exceed 100 million comes along.

:43:23. > :43:26.Can ask the Secretary of St`te to press for fast tracking of the

:43:27. > :43:31.investigation into Chinese steel exports. All of the governmdnts must

:43:32. > :43:37.support with the communities affected by all of these

:43:38. > :43:42.announcements... And the prhmary focuses on maintaining a vi`ble

:43:43. > :43:47.future. I understand they'rd serious interest. Can ask the UK Government

:43:48. > :43:52.to be as positive and forthcoming as possible within the rules that apply

:43:53. > :43:58.in support of any viable buxers for any of the plans. Can I ask two

:43:59. > :44:02.specific questions. She said a number of things which I welcome.

:44:03. > :44:09.Can ask the department to kdep it under close review, to make sure

:44:10. > :44:15.should this be insufficient additional help can be provhded

:44:16. > :44:24.that it estimate the earliest opportunity. This steel indtstry is

:44:25. > :44:30.vitally important menu has suffered from the absence, over decades, of

:44:31. > :44:36.an industrial strategy. We discussed this in the debate last week. Can I

:44:37. > :44:40.ask the Minister to bring forward or have the government bring for it at

:44:41. > :44:45.the earliest opportunity a credible coherent industrial and export

:44:46. > :45:02.strategy, which is centered on steel? Absolutely. It has bden a

:45:03. > :45:09.pleasure to work with him. H fully back all efforts. I hope very much

:45:10. > :45:13.that a buyer can be found in any support that can be given whll be

:45:14. > :45:18.given by the UK Government. He makes a good point about energy costs as

:45:19. > :45:25.he knows state aid rules ard strict when it comes to any support. When

:45:26. > :45:30.he talks about the future, what I would say is this, one of the things

:45:31. > :45:35.we have done that has never been done before, we have looked at all

:45:36. > :45:41.of the huge infrastructure projects we are putting together. Thd huge

:45:42. > :45:56.cost to the taxpayer, and wd have assessed the need, ... If I can use

:45:57. > :46:00.that expression down the tr`ck about the sort of work we are doing as

:46:01. > :46:06.government investing in our infrastructure. The steel

:46:07. > :46:09.requirement in putting that to the industry, it is our intention, I may

:46:10. > :46:17.sound emotional, but we are determined that the steel that is

:46:18. > :46:26.used will be made in this country. We also want to ensure that there

:46:27. > :46:40.are liens and South Wales. ,- plans. And we are working towards that

:46:41. > :46:47.She has such changes in European law and rules that she can actu`lly

:46:48. > :46:50.specify that all railway stdel and construction steel is paid for by

:46:51. > :46:57.Britain will be British. Th`t is what I want. I am amazed at the

:46:58. > :47:06.honourable gentleman would take such a view. What matters most of all, we

:47:07. > :47:09.are good friends, we agree on many things. The most important point is

:47:10. > :47:16.this is that we have changed Ings and we aren't the first of `ny

:47:17. > :47:22.country in EU to do this. -, we are the first. There is no excuse for it

:47:23. > :47:24.not to include absolute buyhng the British steel and indeed other

:47:25. > :47:36.metals. I can assure the minister, the

:47:37. > :47:40.people of my constituency are listening carefully to what is being

:47:41. > :47:45.said today. I can also ensure that there is a palpable sense of anger

:47:46. > :47:48.and frustration amongst my constituents. Acclaimed acthon on

:47:49. > :47:55.energy is still not implemented Lame action on procurement `mounts

:47:56. > :47:59.to so-called advertising whhle there's still no British stdel. The

:48:00. > :48:03.government uses the EU as an excuse to delay while being China's chief

:48:04. > :48:08.cheerleader in Europe. Is it not clear that to the minister trgent

:48:09. > :48:13.action to sustain a steel industry here is the matter of the hhghest

:48:14. > :48:17.national priority? No more dxcuses, no more dodges or delays. Whll the

:48:18. > :48:25.government confirmed here and now that they will not support larket

:48:26. > :48:29.economy status for China? Whll the government established a strong

:48:30. > :48:33.long-term steel strategy with Mac top of steel and the union? If they

:48:34. > :48:39.do that there is a feature hf not there is a wasteland. It is all

:48:40. > :48:45.about all of those men and their families and women and their

:48:46. > :48:50.families who work in the Tata Steel. That is what this is about today and

:48:51. > :48:56.our thoughts are with them. I had pictured you to some of the work of

:48:57. > :48:58.the honourable to have done and I hope that we can continue the

:48:59. > :49:02.discussion because there is much that can be done. Can I just say to

:49:03. > :49:09.the honourable gentleman it would really help if we all work together

:49:10. > :49:13.on that. We all agree... I will not say that about China and MES at all.

:49:14. > :49:19.There is a good argument th`t they should have been dated that advice

:49:20. > :49:23.they -- have at this status, but as I say they have to show as that if

:49:24. > :49:27.they are in the game they h`ve to play by the rules and it will be

:49:28. > :49:36.where the EU to look at all the evidence before it makes its

:49:37. > :49:40.decision on that. Chinese steel manufacturers are offering `dded

:49:41. > :49:45.value services such as steel polishing and finishing fred of

:49:46. > :49:48.charge, making the UK steel industry business is less competitivd. Can my

:49:49. > :49:52.right honourable friend outline what steps the government are taking to

:49:53. > :49:57.support UK business is offering the added value services? I strongly

:49:58. > :50:01.suspect Mr Speaker it is quhte a long list to what I will undertake

:50:02. > :50:06.to do is to write to the honourable lady in full with exactly the sort

:50:07. > :50:09.of detail that she wants. It is a government that absolutely get and

:50:10. > :50:18.understands business and we British business wherever it may be. Job

:50:19. > :50:23.losses announced today are huge blow to communities across South Wales

:50:24. > :50:29.with workers in my constitudncy also directly affected as well as those

:50:30. > :50:34.workers import Talbot where the mill was not bald last year. We `re

:50:35. > :50:36.thinking of them today. I know steel workers make huge sacrifices over

:50:37. > :50:41.the years and have done everything they can to help the companx during

:50:42. > :50:44.particularly tough times. C`n the government and on heart say they

:50:45. > :50:46.have done the same because despite what the minister said todax

:50:47. > :50:53.industry and union they acthon has been far too slow. I am in danger of

:50:54. > :50:56.repeating all the things I've been about what we have done but what I

:50:57. > :51:00.will do and agree with the honourable lady on is that we do not

:51:01. > :51:06.forget the eight huge impact in upset and it follows mothballing

:51:07. > :51:10.last summer. What I will do is play huge -- what I will do is p`y a huge

:51:11. > :51:13.tribute to all those working in the steel industry. They are all highly

:51:14. > :51:17.skilled and prized workers. I know that for many reasons that H am

:51:18. > :51:22.always reminded of my visit to red car and all that workforce that

:51:23. > :51:27.worked at as as eye. These `re highly skilled people and fhnally Mr

:51:28. > :51:32.Speaker -- as as I. The onlx thing say if there is note debate, a large

:51:33. > :51:37.number of steelworkers have made considerable that devices btt when I

:51:38. > :51:40.went to Hamburg and met a group of workers bear represented be`utifully

:51:41. > :51:48.and brilliantly by an excellent trade union leader, was strhking

:51:49. > :51:54.that these were men and womdn who had absolutely taken pay cuts, had

:51:55. > :51:58.made the ultimate sacrifice of so this is a very sad day and ht is not

:51:59. > :52:01.lost on us but we are deterlined Bastille will continue to bd

:52:02. > :52:11.produced in South Wales and in Scunthorpe. As one was brought up in

:52:12. > :52:20.Sheffield, will the Minister accept that the deadly combination of EU

:52:21. > :52:24.energy law, EU subsidy Law `nd EU dumping law means that the

:52:25. > :52:27.government may want to achidve a solution to this problem but

:52:28. > :52:34.actually ultimately it cannot do so without leaving the European Union?

:52:35. > :52:38.Here is a surprise but I do not agree with the honourable

:52:39. > :52:43.gentleman's analysis. Nor indeed his conclusions. If I may say, when the

:52:44. > :52:48.secretary of state went over to Brussels and led the charge, both he

:52:49. > :52:51.and I through conversations I had with my equivalent ministers

:52:52. > :52:55.throughout the EU actually H think we have all come together and I

:52:56. > :52:58.think by working together wd can ensure not just the future of the

:52:59. > :53:03.steel industry in our country but throughout the European Union. The

:53:04. > :53:07.minister has just invited us to believe that Europe offers `n

:53:08. > :53:13.equivalent to her. There yot are. You learn something new every day.

:53:14. > :53:29.Landlord was mentioned so ldt's hear from the fellow. -- gunned the

:53:30. > :53:37.of will she confirmed that when the foreign secondary state at that

:53:38. > :53:40.dispatch box and said that the government would judge markdt

:53:41. > :53:46.economy status through the prism of steel that there would be no drawing

:53:47. > :53:50.back from that position? I `lways try to be honest and helpful to the

:53:51. > :53:53.honourable Benjamin. I did not hear that from him but I will take that

:53:54. > :53:55.up with them. I can assure him of that. As he also knows we are

:53:56. > :54:00.working very hard to security feature of the blast earnings that

:54:01. > :54:05.have come to her because as I say we are determined that British steel is

:54:06. > :54:12.still continuing to be made in this country and it has a sustainable

:54:13. > :54:18.future. Today's announcement will be a bit of a blow to all commtnities

:54:19. > :54:20.with relations between the tnions and Tata Steel management h`ve been

:54:21. > :54:24.excellent. My right honourable friend mentioned that the government

:54:25. > :54:29.will be participating in thd task force be assembled to adjust this

:54:30. > :54:32.issue. Can GE confirm in particular that the Department for work and

:54:33. > :54:39.pensions will be heavily involved so as to ensure that all possible those

:54:40. > :54:43.are affected by redundancy will be reemployed? I completely agree with

:54:44. > :54:47.his analysis of the effect throughout South Wales. It hs not

:54:48. > :54:52.just the workers who face rddundancy when we know it had a huge hmpact on

:54:53. > :54:56.the economy locally. Right there the supply chains. Absolutely I can get

:54:57. > :55:00.him the assurance that we whll be working with the DWP in these

:55:01. > :55:05.circumstances. They do then and almost emergency teams that start

:55:06. > :55:08.the work. Now before any colpulsory redundancies are made. That work

:55:09. > :55:20.will be done because it is being done. The minister did own tp to the

:55:21. > :55:27.failure to implement reform of business rates as part of the is

:55:28. > :55:36.confronted by the steel indtstry. Can the Minister examined and give

:55:37. > :55:39.assurances that in advance of the business rate proposal coming next

:55:40. > :55:43.year that they will look at putting a special package in ways to give

:55:44. > :55:51.some relief to this beleagudred industry? I did not say that we had

:55:52. > :55:54.failed because we have a review going on and it has not comd to a

:55:55. > :55:59.conclusion. What the honour`ble gentleman must remember is that in

:56:00. > :56:02.whale be matter of business rate is devolved so it is up to the Wells

:56:03. > :56:07.government if they want to do anything or can do anything to is

:56:08. > :56:11.that Tata Steel there. The dditing that had absolutely to be s`id is

:56:12. > :56:14.that yes of course we will do everything we can to support our

:56:15. > :56:21.steel industry but always whthin the unfortunate confines of the state

:56:22. > :56:27.aid will. -- eight aid rules. I do not impede minister answered the

:56:28. > :56:32.horrible friend she said shd just a agreed with them. It seems to me why

:56:33. > :56:35.clear that if we were not in the European Union we could havd at it

:56:36. > :56:40.differently and quicker. Wotld see at least agree with that? I do not

:56:41. > :56:44.agree with that at all. I think we are better within a reformed

:56:45. > :56:49.European Union. This is a vdry good example of the benefits of our

:56:50. > :56:58.attending membership with the EU. -- continuing membership. What

:56:59. > :57:02.consideration has the UK government made for employer national hnsurance

:57:03. > :57:11.contributions to help with employment cost with? It sedms that

:57:12. > :57:14.if the conversation I am more than likely to have with the right

:57:15. > :57:21.honourable Donovan. I am more than happy to discuss that with him -

:57:22. > :57:27.right honourable gentleman. Following the collapse of the cup

:57:28. > :57:30.are all group PWC administr`tors have been able to salvage a

:57:31. > :57:33.considerable amount of the business securing local jobs including in my

:57:34. > :57:40.constituency. Not with ending the accident she had taken on issues to

:57:41. > :57:42.do with steel which he agred with me that you questions need to be

:57:43. > :57:48.answered about the financial management to the go borrow group

:57:49. > :57:53.which led to its collapse in the first place. I do not know but I am

:57:54. > :57:58.more than happy to have that discussion because if it is right

:57:59. > :58:07.that is a very serious mattdr. The people of the the site are still

:58:08. > :58:10.dealing with the ... They'll be sending their solidarity and

:58:11. > :58:16.thoughts to the people of work Tolbert and other areas that lost

:58:17. > :58:21.their jobs as well in the l`st two days. The minister still refused

:58:22. > :58:26.today to acknowledge the impact that the market economy status of China

:58:27. > :58:29.will give. This will be trading future of British steel makhng

:58:30. > :58:34.because it will facilitate Chinese dumping which the minister dxalted

:58:35. > :58:38.and picked the lock. That is not the case and I are too big again and out

:58:39. > :58:41.market economy status or sign-up. Of course I listen to the honotrable

:58:42. > :58:45.lady bot might argument it hs always good to have that debate with her.

:58:46. > :58:52.What I am saying is not that it is all sorted on dumping. What I am

:58:53. > :58:55.saying is that we have started. . Mr Speaker... We have ticked the box in

:58:56. > :58:58.terms of getting on and doing something about it but no doubt

:58:59. > :59:03.they'll be more concerned that the steel industry will raise bdcause

:59:04. > :59:07.they raised concerns would be used. -- E you will thought it is really

:59:08. > :59:13.rich coming from the opposition Ready for time we voted in favour of

:59:14. > :59:19.a that option. Not just oncd but twice and now we have rebar so we

:59:20. > :59:22.are making good progress. Does my honourable friend agree that UK

:59:23. > :59:29.companies who want to export their products need to soars the cheapest

:59:30. > :59:32.deal they can if they are to be competitive in the world market

:59:33. > :59:38.width and realistically, thd UK skills that their will alwaxs

:59:39. > :59:43.struggle in the long-term if competitors can forgive the LG brand

:59:44. > :59:49.and we can -- can produce yhelds deeper than we can. One of the bank

:59:50. > :59:53.that is absolutely striking about the British steel industry hs the

:59:54. > :59:57.quality of the product and that is one of the main reasons why people

:59:58. > :00:05.want to buy British steel hd could they know it is the best in the

:00:06. > :00:11.world. Many years since the steelworks in my constituency closed

:00:12. > :00:18.and some would say that the local economy had never fully recovered.

:00:19. > :00:21.My constituent understand wdll the period that will exist in the

:00:22. > :00:23.community in South Wales and elsewhere in the country after the

:00:24. > :00:27.news today. And I asked the Minister to be clear with the house `bout

:00:28. > :00:33.exactly where the government stand on this question of market dconomy

:00:34. > :00:43.status for China and how it relates to anti-doping rules? The H`stert --

:00:44. > :00:50.anti-dumping. The decision will be made by the European Union. We also

:00:51. > :00:54.take the view and IM repeathng it, but I think it's important, that for

:00:55. > :00:58.China to get that it must show that it will play by the rules and it

:00:59. > :01:04.must the evidence that it is playing by the rules. By right honotrable

:01:05. > :01:10.friend is absolutely right `bout the quality of it is still but the

:01:11. > :01:16.quality of some imports is luch to be desired. What leads to bd divided

:01:17. > :01:21.of the standards of quality around steel so that British steel can

:01:22. > :01:27.flourish was white in number of companies I am thinking of seltzer

:01:28. > :01:30.who met they are a Cardiff ,based company were very keen to m`ke this

:01:31. > :01:34.point about whether or not hmports work of the same quality. Yds we

:01:35. > :01:38.have looked at the standard. Sadly we have not always made progress

:01:39. > :01:41.because is an independent body and makes these decisions and not the

:01:42. > :01:44.job of government unfortunately we have no influence over them but he

:01:45. > :01:54.makes a very important point and it is one we advance all the thme. Job

:01:55. > :02:01.losses have devastated the people and communities in South West Wales.

:02:02. > :02:05.Many of my constituency. Thdre. I endorsed the words of right

:02:06. > :02:08.honourable friend and asked again what urgent action will the

:02:09. > :02:14.government take a had apart from warm words? I will go through all

:02:15. > :02:17.the things we have done but what I will assure the honourable lady is

:02:18. > :02:21.that we will work with the was government. We have asked to be part

:02:22. > :02:26.of their task forth and I vdry much hope that they will have thd United

:02:27. > :02:31.Kingdom government as part of their task forth. I think that is very

:02:32. > :02:34.important. -- Welsh governmdnt. And I think the minister for all the

:02:35. > :02:39.work and support you have provided to those of affected in Scunthorpe.

:02:40. > :02:43.It is really appreciated and the commitment going forward to support

:02:44. > :02:48.the sale of the site which ly cup and other low MPs will be mdeting

:02:49. > :02:53.later this week. On the edgd of support to affected by job losses

:02:54. > :02:56.thus far ?9 million Haggartx come our way. One issue would have come

:02:57. > :03:01.up at our local task force `t how much of that money can be used and

:03:02. > :03:06.how flexibly to the bar new jobs as well as the job. If we made a than

:03:07. > :03:08.patient can see as or is a laximum like abilities of the money game

:03:09. > :03:14.used to create new as well `s existing jobs. I start answdr is yes

:03:15. > :03:17.was will plead you Mr Speakdr. As the honourable 80s for Right Guard

:03:18. > :03:21.knows when I hear and find out if there were any good book I do not

:03:22. > :03:25.mess about in getting them started. So we do not want any nonsense it in

:03:26. > :03:32.the honourable gentleman knows my door is always open so we c`n sort

:03:33. > :03:36.things out. The minister had spoken of the state aid rules and get the

:03:37. > :03:39.Italian government has avidly permissibly provided systems to aid

:03:40. > :03:43.your industry on the basis that it constitutes environmental

:03:44. > :03:48.protection. My father worked for steel for 40 years and I know the

:03:49. > :03:52.sacrifice as the many steel working families over so many years in this

:03:53. > :03:57.industry. Don't they deservd a government now that does so much

:03:58. > :04:02.more than this one is willing to do? I pay tribute to all those hncluding

:04:03. > :04:06.my honourable friend whose grandmother worked in skill. I think

:04:07. > :04:12.my own great grandmother did. The most important thing is to lake this

:04:13. > :04:16.absolutely clear that we know the great value of all the Steelworkers.

:04:17. > :04:22.He did ask me a question whhch I have now completely forgottdn.

:04:23. > :04:28.Italy! Another huge myth. The Italian government is in thd process

:04:29. > :04:36.of selling that he'll industry. We will see if there are any btyers.

:04:37. > :04:43.Can I pay tribute to the minister. I am unaware of the -- aware of the

:04:44. > :04:46.impact he had on job losses but is he reasserting out that the

:04:47. > :04:49.investment the government is putting into retraining and rescaling

:04:50. > :04:53.workers will end up in the pockets of those workers and not with

:04:54. > :05:01.consultants or accountant and people of such interest was was whhte

:05:02. > :05:07.absolutely. We know in the path that has not always been the casd. We

:05:08. > :05:10.come from areas where there were always concerned to whether or not

:05:11. > :05:13.government is in tagged Bears money was being properly spent and I am

:05:14. > :05:17.hopeful, in fact I am sure that the money we made available for the

:05:18. > :05:24.workers will we properly thhnk and if it is not I want to know about it

:05:25. > :05:28.and we will sort it out. Can I press the minister, will the treasury find

:05:29. > :05:33.a way to provide the extra resources to the Welsh government to reduce

:05:34. > :05:41.business rates at Tata Steel to help keep heal alive"? They did want to

:05:42. > :05:46.have that as part of their devolution settlement and there is a

:05:47. > :05:48.good argument that if you gdt what you ask for you have to takd the

:05:49. > :05:52.consequences. At the moment, no such request has been made but it request

:05:53. > :05:59.is made and whatever it maybe we will always listen. When I walked

:06:00. > :06:03.through the crossrail tunnel with the James Ward select committee the

:06:04. > :06:06.boxes they are really stressed the high level of British procurement as

:06:07. > :06:09.part of that project. Does the Minister agree with me that we can

:06:10. > :06:15.really win hearts and minds on the head test to project -- HS2 project

:06:16. > :06:19.by putting British steel at the heart of this billions of pounds

:06:20. > :06:26.project. Absolutely and we `re hugely proud of the fact th`t

:06:27. > :06:30.crossrail, a fantastic multh-billion pound project has been built with

:06:31. > :06:39.British still because it is the best. -The 20th next door to Guy

:06:40. > :06:46.many of my work force travel... There is a real risk that the

:06:47. > :06:49.critical mass of Steelworkers is going to be endangered by the job

:06:50. > :06:53.losses. Can we have an assurance from the minister that therd will be

:06:54. > :06:59.interim relief in business rates at least because that is the bhg issue

:07:00. > :07:06.that is going to make or brdak the viability of that works and the job

:07:07. > :07:09.there. Is a good argument btt not one to but at my door because this

:07:10. > :07:13.is the responsibility of thd whilst government because it is devolved. I

:07:14. > :07:16.think there is other work wd can do and one of the things we were

:07:17. > :07:21.discussing with Tata Steel for a long time is about whether or not

:07:22. > :07:25.all the land that is there hs being best used and I think there is a lot

:07:26. > :07:29.of work that we can do with the board to make a more viable and look

:07:30. > :07:39.at other ways of making certain that we make full use of the port by port

:07:40. > :07:44.Albert. Today is a sad day for the steel industry. Particularlx with

:07:45. > :07:51.the workers who live in my constituency. There has over the

:07:52. > :07:54.weekend bent quite a bit of rhetoric regarding responsibility th`t live

:07:55. > :08:00.here at Westminster according to him for the recovery. There are many

:08:01. > :08:04.things at Cardiff Bay that could be used particularly as this r`tes Was

:08:05. > :08:08.he with me that the first Mhnister would be better employing a time

:08:09. > :08:19.ensuring that these are used rather than engaging in tribal polhtics was

:08:20. > :08:25.? I agree. If the time for dveryone to come together and the best thing

:08:26. > :08:29.that written steel industry -- written's steel industry. There is

:08:30. > :08:34.no excuse not to buy British steel. Can I ask her what she said with

:08:35. > :08:38.former colleague of the Minhstry of defence for British steel for

:08:39. > :08:48.contacts and particularly whether she expressed the dividends of. .

:08:49. > :08:54.Short answers are yes and yds. The value of Sheffield is not lost on

:08:55. > :09:01.anybody especially those of us who are concerned about the futtre of

:09:02. > :09:06.our defence sector. In an e`rlier answer my honourable friend talked

:09:07. > :09:09.about playing by the rules `nd then added there is no reason whx HS

:09:10. > :09:13.cannot use British steel. As I understand it the EU law me`ns that

:09:14. > :09:20.my honourable friend cannot guarantee that. Is that not correct?

:09:21. > :09:24.I do not think it is as simple as cannot guarantee it. We livd in a

:09:25. > :09:28.free market economy and that means that anybody must be free to buy

:09:29. > :09:32.from whomsoever they feel whll give them the best deal. I think the

:09:33. > :09:37.point that we are saying is that when it comes to our own procurement

:09:38. > :09:42.rules at government with a spare's money we have maybe ruled stch that

:09:43. > :09:45.there is no egg use for anybody not to buy British steel and because it

:09:46. > :09:51.is so good there is every rdason why they should. The measures announced

:09:52. > :09:54.by the government are welcole however very limited. Was hd not

:09:55. > :10:00.accept that unless we tackld the question of Chinese dumping in the

:10:01. > :10:03.whole future of the whole UK industry is prayed in that clock is

:10:04. > :10:07.ticking and we do not have luch time left with Matt it is import`nt but

:10:08. > :10:10.it is not the answer. One of the reasons why the price of stdel has

:10:11. > :10:15.plummeted is not just because of the worldwide overproduction th`t

:10:16. > :10:20.because consumption of steel has not even got to where it was before the

:10:21. > :10:30.crisis. It is not as simple as Chinese dumping. The ministdr talks

:10:31. > :10:36.tough on procurement, why then are UK companies capable of producing

:10:37. > :10:39.the large forgings for the think the point reactor not being givdn the

:10:40. > :10:43.opportunity even to tender for the work? Under the terms of thd

:10:44. > :10:47.contract stuff between this government and EDF? Could bd it

:10:48. > :10:52.minister say specifically what independent evaluation has our

:10:53. > :10:54.department undertaken of EDF's assertion that there are no UK

:10:55. > :11:01.companies with the relevant experience? My honourable friend the

:11:02. > :11:05.secondary day of paper energy is hearing that the OC and I whll

:11:06. > :11:16.discuss it and we will writd to the honourable gentleman. I welcome the

:11:17. > :11:19.belated announcement and support for the steel industry. When can we

:11:20. > :11:24.expect similar announcement for support of other parts of UK

:11:25. > :11:27.manufacturing? As I pay procurement rules are not just apply to feel

:11:28. > :11:32.they apply to other metals, I think they apply to almost everything I

:11:33. > :11:38.need to go back and check on that but let's be absolutely cle`r I am

:11:39. > :11:41.very proud of this government's record and the last governmdnt's

:11:42. > :11:46.record. If you look at the back there are over 2 million more people

:11:47. > :11:48.in work, I know it is lost to most people on the bench is sitthng

:11:49. > :12:00.opposite, that is a proud rdcord of this country. The minister gave the

:12:01. > :12:04.house details of the updated procurement guidance and as my

:12:05. > :12:08.honourable friend pointed ott maybe statement that there is no dxcuse

:12:09. > :12:12.not to and every reason to buy British deal. Of course the ability

:12:13. > :12:20.to do that by the industry hs constrained by the fact that they're

:12:21. > :12:24.range of capabilities as behng - has been lost and limited to a great

:12:25. > :12:29.degree over the last few decades. In other words British still does not

:12:30. > :12:32.make the range of components and a specialised range of skill that it

:12:33. > :12:35.did years ago. What is the government wanting to do to support

:12:36. > :12:42.the industry as we propose to do with Ford's Masters in securing

:12:43. > :12:46.investment and development of a new range of capabilities because we are

:12:47. > :12:50.not going to see high UK content in our infrastructure projects and we

:12:51. > :12:54.address that issue. The honourable Lady made a good point but H think

:12:55. > :12:59.the most important thing is in the face of these unprecedented price is

:13:00. > :13:03.across the hall of gas crisds across the whole of the world, what this

:13:04. > :13:07.government is determined to do and we have already started that work in

:13:08. > :13:12.figuring it the long-term sustainability of both in Antwerp

:13:13. > :13:18.and in South Wales -- Scunthorpe to produce steel. Honourable mdmbers

:13:19. > :13:24.can attend to Ron about what other European Union countries ard doing.

:13:25. > :13:27.We have examined evidence and there's a lot of mythology `bout all

:13:28. > :13:32.this. This country have takdn the action that is needed, involved in

:13:33. > :13:37.saying quite clearly to Tat` Steel and Krehbiel we will help you in any

:13:38. > :13:40.way we can in securing this deal and also to occur when abhorred Talbot.

:13:41. > :13:49.We will do everything we can to support you guys Port Talbot.

:13:50. > :13:55.On the issue of anti-dumping, at a European level why had UK government

:13:56. > :14:02.let a blocking minority to prevent trade performance was like H am

:14:03. > :14:04.afraid I just do not accept this Mr Speaker. The secretary of State has

:14:05. > :14:09.led the charge. He went over to Brussels, he set up an emergency

:14:10. > :14:13.committee to look specifically at the problems facing the stedl

:14:14. > :14:22.industry. I think we are dohng the right thing. I think one of the most

:14:23. > :14:25.frustrating things for Stew`rt in my own visit to the imparted across all

:14:26. > :14:30.the other end of the UK is that they know the previous government was

:14:31. > :14:33.warned again and again and `gain about the challenges facing the

:14:34. > :14:37.industry and while the minister that out the actions had taken the last

:14:38. > :14:40.few months many that she dods I welcome, can see they had done hard

:14:41. > :14:43.that the previous deal minister and Chancellor did everything they did

:14:44. > :14:50.good when they were warned `bout the crises? Gas. What I will sax about

:14:51. > :15:09.my department is to do this we have a conservative Secretary of State.

:15:10. > :15:13.-- --. Yes. Was the minister's. . As I have said we are determindd, the

:15:14. > :15:19.Prime Minister has said that is a vital industry. We are absolutely

:15:20. > :15:23.determined that we will havd a sustainable deal industry producing

:15:24. > :15:34.steel at Scunthorpe and in South Wales in blast furnaces. Prhor to

:15:35. > :15:38.Christmas, the UA CD had a leeting on steel which the Chinese

:15:39. > :15:41.delegation reviewed to attend. Obviously every other country that

:15:42. > :15:45.was there wanted to talk as glee about Chinese dumping. It is the

:15:46. > :15:58.government's addition in relation to Chinese market economy statts that

:15:59. > :16:05.they... Whether China's wind up for the agreement signed in Parhs. Can

:16:06. > :16:09.the Minister tell us how on earth we will have a manufacturing sdctor at

:16:10. > :16:13.all if China is allowed to dump in such a way without any control

:16:14. > :16:18.whether in this life or the European Union would like as I have said MAF

:16:19. > :16:23.is a matter for the European Union and as I have also said probably we

:16:24. > :16:26.are in favour of it that we have made it very clear that China will

:16:27. > :16:34.only get it if it proves th`t it can play by the rules. The minister

:16:35. > :16:37.cannot have it both ways because as sure as night follows day,

:16:38. > :16:42.eventually local consumption will increase, demand will incre`se, and

:16:43. > :16:47.the price of the yield will increase. What assessment h`s our

:16:48. > :16:53.department made of the long,term impact both on UK competitiveness

:16:54. > :16:58.but also on our own domestic economic strategy with this vital

:16:59. > :17:05.industry so badly depleted? What we do know is that if the partx

:17:06. > :17:08.opposite is in charge of our country's economy again it will take

:17:09. > :17:18.us back to the brink of bankruptcy as it did last time. Order. We come

:17:19. > :17:23.down to the main business. H am agreeable to the minister and

:17:24. > :17:31.colleagues. I remind the Hotse that I have certified quality 79 of the

:17:32. > :17:37.energy bill, understanding order number 83 J in relation to Dngland

:17:38. > :17:43.and Wales. I further remind the house that this does not repeat

:17:44. > :17:49.not, affect proceedings in the debate on second reading or indeed

:17:50. > :17:54.in committee or at report stage After report stage, I will consider

:17:55. > :17:57.them again for certification and if required the legislative gr`nt

:17:58. > :18:06.committee will be asked to consent to certify provisions.

:18:07. > :18:17.Energy bill lost second reading -- law. To move the second reading I

:18:18. > :18:23.call the secretary for energy and climate change. I beg to move that

:18:24. > :18:30.Bill believed that a second time. This is focused on securing a better

:18:31. > :18:34.future for a second time. Otr job is to rebuild Britain so we le`ve to

:18:35. > :18:40.the next generation a stronger Kontinen and what -- countrx than

:18:41. > :18:45.the one we inherited. That leans ensuring our energy securitx. We

:18:46. > :18:49.cannot function without the electricity, oil and gas le`se to

:18:50. > :18:52.heat our homes, power busindss industry and drive our transport

:18:53. > :18:56.system. The well-being of otr common media and our citizens requhres that

:18:57. > :19:02.the first priority for the Department of Energy and Clhmate

:19:03. > :19:04.Change should be energy sectrity. But no responsible government to

:19:05. > :19:08.take a risk on climate change either. It is one of the grdatest

:19:09. > :19:18.long-term threat to our economic security. I will give way. H should

:19:19. > :19:26.have said to the House, in case the bar waiting with bated breath, that

:19:27. > :19:30.the amendment has not been selected. I want to release the honourable

:19:31. > :19:36.lady from her misery. Beford we proceed any further. There `re is

:19:37. > :19:45.adequate opportunity for her to debate on these later. On that

:19:46. > :19:48.point. Underground coal production is a major concern in my

:19:49. > :19:51.constituency because natural resources have been granted a

:19:52. > :19:57.license which runs alongsidd the constituency. In the speech on the

:19:58. > :20:02.18th of November she announced the governments welcome intention to

:20:03. > :20:06.close call our 2025 and restrict it I2023, Cole is one of the most

:20:07. > :20:12.carbon intensive fossil fuels damages air-quality in is not

:20:13. > :20:16.sustainable in the long terl. If the honourable lady could come to her

:20:17. > :20:21.question that will be great. The government is proposing to hn

:20:22. > :20:24.burning coal, will the Secrdtary of State clarify the position on

:20:25. > :20:31.underground coal which involves burning coal underground? I could

:20:32. > :20:37.urge the honourable lady to participate in the consultation

:20:38. > :20:44.which be having shortly abott it, in terms of timing, it will be

:20:45. > :20:48.opportunity for her to make a point. It is a significant step towards

:20:49. > :20:52.reducing, on a global scale, the omissions that cause climatd change.

:20:53. > :20:55.For the first time nearly 200 countries have made a commitment to

:20:56. > :21:00.act together in symbiotic honourable. This agreement will help

:21:01. > :21:04.protect not only our environment but are national and economic sdcurity

:21:05. > :21:08.as well. Our national progrdss has been good today with greenhouse gas

:21:09. > :21:16.emissions down around 30% shnce 1890. Between 2010-2014 the gas

:21:17. > :21:21.emissions fell by 15%, one of the biggest reductions in a single

:21:22. > :21:26.parliament. Indeed, and 2014 we saw the largest reduction measured in a

:21:27. > :21:31.single year, down 8%, a fantastic achievement against the backdrop of

:21:32. > :21:40.an economy that grew to .9%. In June, would these -- we will set the

:21:41. > :21:46.new budget. -- to .9%. At the end of the year we will show our ndw plan.

:21:47. > :21:50.The emissions reduction plan will provide full details of our approach

:21:51. > :21:56.we are ready know where we need to take more action, energy efficiency

:21:57. > :21:59.and long-term framework for heat, omissions reduction in the

:22:00. > :22:04.industrial sector and of cotrse in transport where progress has been

:22:05. > :22:08.slow. -- 2.9%. In all these areas will mean new thinking and work with

:22:09. > :22:15.academia and business to develop proper long-term plans. I ghve way.

:22:16. > :22:17.Not being one who was too concerned about CO2 emissions, perhaps the

:22:18. > :22:23.Minister could tell us how luch of the reduction in our CO2 emhssions

:22:24. > :22:28.is due to the fact that we `re exporting jobs to other parts of the

:22:29. > :22:32.world, such as the statement we have before her introduction tod`y. I

:22:33. > :22:39.hope that the armed with gentleman would take some convert frol the

:22:40. > :22:43.agreement, although the UK has the most ambitious climate change

:22:44. > :22:45.targets possibly in the world, the agreement will go some way to

:22:46. > :22:52.address the competitive isste that he raises, because other cotntries

:22:53. > :22:55.are also taking on publicathons to reduce their emissions as wdll. I

:22:56. > :23:01.would highlight China and that as well, who for the first timd as part

:23:02. > :23:06.of a global agreement. Let le make some progress and I will give way.

:23:07. > :23:10.Mr Speaker, as part of the `ction, this government is focused on scene

:23:11. > :23:14.a long-term plan for secure, clean and affordable energy supplhes for

:23:15. > :23:18.generations to come. This bhll delivers key manifesto commhtments

:23:19. > :23:22.to achieve that objective. Over the next parliament that means dnsuring

:23:23. > :23:25.we continue to it support investment in UK energy sources includhng in

:23:26. > :23:30.the North Sea. A music conthnuing of support deployment of renew`ble so

:23:31. > :23:35.that we meet our objective of producing 30% of our electrhcity

:23:36. > :23:42.from her Lupul sources by 2020. I give way to the honourable

:23:43. > :23:47.gentleman. -- former global sources. Could the secretary of statd

:23:48. > :23:57.explained promoting a more dxpensive form of rentable energy -- renewable

:23:58. > :24:05.energy. Can't you tell about the energy savings. The lowest rate of

:24:06. > :24:09.saving is just 30p per year. The honourable gentleman asked le a

:24:10. > :24:16.false question, we have to deliver on our manifesto commitments, that

:24:17. > :24:25.is why we will be ending it. We will still be making our target which we

:24:26. > :24:33.put in 2012 to do 11-13 by 20 2 . In terms of the amount that is saved by

:24:34. > :24:36.taking these actions are those estimate is about 20 million a year

:24:37. > :24:50.and our highest is about 200 million a year. This is a significant sums,

:24:51. > :24:55.I would urge M... I do not `gree with the way he put it, but he made

:24:56. > :24:58.an important point. Although she is probably saying how well ard

:24:59. > :25:02.emissions that come down, if you are to take into account consumption

:25:03. > :25:05.omissions, those omissions that are linked to our consumption when we

:25:06. > :25:09.import things from other pl`ces like China and will she agree from that

:25:10. > :25:12.perspective our emissions h`ve gone up and we do have some

:25:13. > :25:17.responsibility for those industries we have outsourced to places like

:25:18. > :25:21.China but we enjoy the benefits of that here? The honourable l`dy

:25:22. > :25:25.should be to the honourable gentleman behind her. I would come

:25:26. > :25:30.back to her and stated that she also should take comfort from thd Paris

:25:31. > :25:34.agreement which obliges all countries to take action in this

:25:35. > :25:38.important area. The other activity we are taking on in order to deliver

:25:39. > :25:41.on our low carbon future is to press ahead with a new fleet of ntclear

:25:42. > :25:46.power stations. We are also encouraging new gas power stations

:25:47. > :25:54.so that we can end the use of coal for electricity generation by 2 25.

:25:55. > :25:58.I give weight. Will she accdpt that only 2.5% is nuclear. If yot read

:25:59. > :26:03.15% within ten years uraniul will have run out. Will she accept that

:26:04. > :26:12.we should do more with renewables given the 80% of fossil fuels cannot

:26:13. > :26:15.be exploited, she's doing enough? Can I urge the honourable gdntleman

:26:16. > :26:19.to think carefully about thd importance of getting the b`lance.

:26:20. > :26:23.However important we think renewables are and we do, wd need to

:26:24. > :26:29.also have absolutely secure base vote so there is never any risk to

:26:30. > :26:36.security. That is what is that when to delivering on nuclear. -, that is

:26:37. > :26:40.why this government is commhtted. I checked today, 1% of our power is

:26:41. > :26:44.being generated... Of dirty percent from coal and 42% on gas. Doesn t

:26:45. > :26:48.that show us that the Secretary of State not to rely on these

:26:49. > :26:56.renewables, or the lights would go off with Mac -- 30% he is rhght it

:26:57. > :26:59.is absolutely essential to lake sure we have the cure base loads while we

:27:00. > :27:03.deliver on our renewable targets as well. Simply meeting the targets

:27:04. > :27:10.have set ourselves is not stfficient if we are to ensure energy security.

:27:11. > :27:15.We have to get this in the lost cost-effective way. Not part of a

:27:16. > :27:19.permanent business model it should be temporary. Clean technologies

:27:20. > :27:22.won't be sustainable at the scale we need if they are cheap enough. We

:27:23. > :27:26.need to get the right balance between supporting new technologies

:27:27. > :27:33.and as costs come down, being tough on subsidies to keep bills `s low as

:27:34. > :27:38.possible. We can only expect the players to support low carbon power

:27:39. > :27:45.as long as costs are controlled -- payers. First, by continuing to

:27:46. > :27:51.support the development of North Sea oil and gas by implementing

:27:52. > :27:54.regulations of the review to establish the oil and gas Atthority

:27:55. > :28:00.as an independent regulator and Stewart. Second, acting to control

:28:01. > :28:04.the cost of renewing energy by ending new set cities for Unser went

:28:05. > :28:09.in providing local people whth the final say on new applications. I am

:28:10. > :28:14.going to make some progress on these two and I will take further

:28:15. > :28:18.interruptions. Not yet. The North Sea oil and gas industry is still a

:28:19. > :28:21.huge strategic and economic importance to the United Kingdom. It

:28:22. > :28:25.has been the UK's largest industry investor for many decades on the

:28:26. > :28:31.supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs especially in Scotland. Since

:28:32. > :28:37.the 1970s industry has paid for over ?300 billion of production taxes. In

:28:38. > :28:43.2014, the UK Continental shdlf reduced all the gas equivaldnt to

:28:44. > :28:46.well over half of the UK delands. But, as it matures all and gas has

:28:47. > :28:53.become more difficult and more expensive to access. This h`s a

:28:54. > :28:55.sharp focus for the sustaindd fall in oil prices. It is putting

:28:56. > :28:59.considerable pressure on thd industry to create a more

:29:00. > :29:04.competitive space and incre`se efficiency. As a result, 2004-1 saw

:29:05. > :29:10.falling revenues and falling investment, regrettably, we are

:29:11. > :29:14.seeing job losses. In order to continue to attract investmdnt and

:29:15. > :29:19.safeguard a future of this vital national asset, the Chancellor set

:29:20. > :29:28.out a Dominican package tax reform in the March 2015 budget. -, set out

:29:29. > :29:32.a package. We increased production by 15% by 2020, and the long-term a

:29:33. > :29:38.sustainable economic future for the North Sea offshore industry will

:29:39. > :29:41.only be achieved if we can laximize oil and gas recovery. That hs

:29:42. > :29:45.otherwise government set up the review and report it with a rash of

:29:46. > :29:54.the GM plays were covering of the North Sea rivers can be boosted by

:29:55. > :30:00.an additional 3-4 billion b`rrels. Laster stop production incrdased at

:30:01. > :30:03.the North Sea which is welcome anytime where most disparatd

:30:04. > :30:09.industry is relatively bleak. Will she agree with me that the hndustry

:30:10. > :30:13.is in a point where buyers sustained support from the government which

:30:14. > :30:19.would require visible measures on the Chancellor and his coming

:30:20. > :30:24.budget? -- last year. He is absolutely right. Great progress has

:30:25. > :30:28.been made introducing the cost of production already. And it part of

:30:29. > :30:34.the intent of this bill to lake sure we can deliver further on that. I

:30:35. > :30:38.share his view that we need to give as much support as possible, but it

:30:39. > :30:43.will be too early for myself to comment on whether they will be

:30:44. > :30:45.aiming to give that support. This government is committed to laking

:30:46. > :30:58.sure that we support those jobs in the industry. I give way. She accept

:30:59. > :31:04.that the reason, is fracking. The latest evidence shows that fracking

:31:05. > :31:12.generates 5%... It goes into the MS beer, 82% making them and affects

:31:13. > :31:17.climate change. Will she have negotiations with the United States

:31:18. > :31:20.about reducing this and put the brakes on fracking so we can

:31:21. > :31:26.actually lift the price of oil and have a more sustainable futtre? The

:31:27. > :31:29.honourable gentleman I will make two points. The reason for the fall in

:31:30. > :31:33.the price of oil is multipld and complex. I will not actuallx analyze

:31:34. > :31:36.it here. It is not just one cause. US has considerably reduced its

:31:37. > :31:45.emissions because of fracking which we welcome that point. Any demands

:31:46. > :31:48.we do not meet ourselves has to be met by imports, significant extra

:31:49. > :31:51.cost to the economy, industry government shares the same `mbitions

:31:52. > :31:56.and is working closely together to manage the remaining resources

:31:57. > :31:59.effectively and efficiently. As we de-carbonize our economy we will

:32:00. > :32:04.continue to meet all and gas for many decades to come. Far bdtter for

:32:05. > :32:06.jobs and revenue in the UK offsetting imports where we can

:32:07. > :32:12.Maximizing economic recoverx for the UK Continental shelf must bd part of

:32:13. > :32:17.a balanced plan for diverse and progressively lower carbon lix. This

:32:18. > :32:23.bill will complete the work started in the previous Parliament hmplement

:32:24. > :32:26.fully the review. Keys to this recommendation is the establishment

:32:27. > :32:33.of the oil and gas authoritx. As an independent regulator with ` clear

:32:34. > :32:39.and focused mandate maximizd recovery of UK petroleum. C`uses

:32:40. > :32:43.1-76 establish it as a independent regulator which will take the form

:32:44. > :32:49.of a government owned companies transforming regular to powdrs and

:32:50. > :32:51.functions to the OGA and giving him new powers to maximize the dconomic

:32:52. > :32:58.recovery. The OGA will take forward the principle of maximizing economic

:32:59. > :33:04.recovery set out in part ond A of the petroleum act of 1998 whth the

:33:05. > :33:09.power taken in the infrastrtcture act of 2015. In November, I ordered

:33:10. > :33:13.a consultation on strategy for maximizing economic recoverx of UK

:33:14. > :33:18.petroleum which is essential to the future of its effectiveness. An

:33:19. > :33:21.amendment made in the other place means to broaden that princhple

:33:22. > :33:26.greatly expanding the scope of the OGA's wrote and going far bdyond the

:33:27. > :33:31.vision set out in the review. Madam Deputy Speaker, we seek to overturn

:33:32. > :33:38.his amendment. In our view `nd indeed that of the industry and the

:33:39. > :33:41.union, diluting the focus of the OGA at this critical time is not the

:33:42. > :33:50.right way to proceed. The ODA should be focused on maximize the dconomic

:33:51. > :33:54.recovery. In the current difficult and challenging circumstancds

:33:55. > :33:59.nothing to distract from th`t vital task. -- OGA. The OGA requires

:34:00. > :34:03.clarity on that objective and we intend to provide that. Mad`m Deputy

:34:04. > :34:13.Speaker this government is committed to the climate change, ... We will

:34:14. > :34:18.see the climate change, we set the fifth carbon budget. Amendmdnts made

:34:19. > :34:22.in the other place he could change the way we count carbon for carbon

:34:23. > :34:26.budget purposes in the fifth budget onwards. Given the work to set a

:34:27. > :34:30.fifth carbon budget it is wdll underway and has been for ndarly a

:34:31. > :34:36.year. Although it is right to keep our practice is under review, now is

:34:37. > :34:41.not the right time to changd. To do so, this far into the process, would

:34:42. > :34:46.seriously threaten it. We sdek to overturn these amendments. Turning

:34:47. > :34:51.up the delivery of the governments manifesto commitments to end the

:34:52. > :34:58.subsidies and to ensure loc`l people have the final say in on archer went

:34:59. > :35:02.is built. I set out to the House on June the 18th trying to close the

:35:03. > :35:08.obligation for it in Great Britain on April the 1st 2016. With the

:35:09. > :35:12.great Spirit available for the project which as of the 18th of June

:35:13. > :35:16.20 15th have arty planning consent and off for a good connection and

:35:17. > :35:21.access to land rights. The provisions we made to achieve this

:35:22. > :35:28.were removed in the other place and will be introduced. Let me be clear,

:35:29. > :35:33.there is no ambiguity on thhs. This is a manifesto commitment wd

:35:34. > :35:36.signaled our thinking beford the last election and we put it before

:35:37. > :35:45.the British people and black-and-white to end the public

:35:46. > :35:47.subsidies for onshore wind. There long-established commitments that

:35:48. > :35:51.are well understood and we will stand firm on this. Onshore wind has

:35:52. > :35:56.deployed successfully today and is projected to meet the planndd range

:35:57. > :36:00.of 11-13 gigawatts by 2020. There is a risk of the point beyond this

:36:01. > :36:03.range, potentially adding more cost to consumer bills and squeezing out

:36:04. > :36:09.opportunities for other rendwables like offshore wind to bring down the

:36:10. > :36:14.cost. We have engaged widelx on proposals I set out in June

:36:15. > :36:21.including the Bob demonstrations, investors and builders. -- devolved.

:36:22. > :36:27.It is important that Northern Ireland closes at one equiv`lent

:36:28. > :36:32.terms. I give way. Could shd stop the consequences for Northern

:36:33. > :36:40.Ireland. Should the executive maintain the subsidies for longer

:36:41. > :36:42.than the period after 2016? He raises an important question. It is

:36:43. > :36:46.my position is Northern Ireland chooses to provide addition`l

:36:47. > :36:49.support for onshore wind thd consumers in Northern Ireland and

:36:50. > :36:53.not Great Britain should be`r the cost of this. We have to make

:36:54. > :36:58.strategic cost where public money is directed because we cannot `fford to

:36:59. > :37:02.support every project and every technology regardless of his

:37:03. > :37:05.contribution to energy security and regardless of the cost. We need to

:37:06. > :37:10.concentrate our support where technology has the potential to

:37:11. > :37:15.deliver at a significant go`l that we need for energy security and the

:37:16. > :37:19.carbonize age in. And where we still need to see significant falls in

:37:20. > :37:26.cross technology. -- de-carbonize nation. Can she grant from the next

:37:27. > :37:30.round is for this advanced technology for health and whether

:37:31. > :37:36.the widest possible range of those technologies will be suitable for

:37:37. > :37:41.that? He raises an important point and we have affirmed that there will

:37:42. > :37:47.be three new auctions for offshore wind and we are looking out at will

:37:48. > :37:51.be included in the act and the best way to really drive down prhces

:37:52. > :37:55.This government is clear th`t that support will only continue `s long

:37:56. > :37:59.as we continue to drive down prices, it is critical to looking after

:38:00. > :38:14.consumers. I will give way to the honourable gentleman. Therefore on

:38:15. > :38:24.a technical point can she tdll how will be handled in Wells. Hd raises

:38:25. > :38:27.two points, we have said we are evolving to local communitids and

:38:28. > :38:34.that we are ending the subshdies. It will be unlikely, and current, for

:38:35. > :38:37.anyone shall rise up to go `head. We have agreed to discuss with

:38:38. > :38:44.developers the prospect of `n onshore wind without subsidx if it

:38:45. > :38:47.has local community support. And in Wales I will be in discussion with

:38:48. > :38:51.the Welsh Government on the best way to deliver on that suggestion. Rest

:38:52. > :38:55.assured that the devolved administration is fully aware of the

:38:56. > :38:59.plans and we are supporting them. We are pushing forward with proposals

:39:00. > :39:03.for low carbon base load. And with a new fleet of nuclear power stations.

:39:04. > :39:10.We are consulting on a closdr day and working to get and lower power

:39:11. > :39:13.stations built. Energy security must come first. Because it is the

:39:14. > :39:18.foundation of our future economic success. But, that future mtst be

:39:19. > :39:22.low carbon as well. Climate change is one of the greatest long,term

:39:23. > :39:29.that's economic security th`t low carbon future cannot be achheved

:39:30. > :39:34.because it is the hard-workhng families of bridge and were

:39:35. > :39:39.ultimately footing the bill. I beg to move, Madam Deputy Speakdr. The

:39:40. > :39:46.question is that the bill bd read a second time. Thank you. North Sea

:39:47. > :39:50.oil and gas production has helped fund public services like the

:39:51. > :39:53.National Health Service through taxes, generator with hundrdds of

:39:54. > :39:57.billions of pounds. It has hmproved our national security by reducing

:39:58. > :40:02.our dependence on imports from other countries. It has back to otr energy

:40:03. > :40:05.security by providing a relhable supply of gas and oil. Tools that

:40:06. > :40:12.will continue to play an important role in our energy, particularly for

:40:13. > :40:17.heating and transport as we transition to become a lower carbon

:40:18. > :40:22.economy. Crucially, the North Sea also sustained hundreds of thousands

:40:23. > :40:27.of skilled jobs in Scotland, the North East of England and in

:40:28. > :40:33.world-class supply chain businesses right across the country. For these

:40:34. > :40:35.reasons it has been across party consents is for some considdrable

:40:36. > :40:42.time, that we should do everything that we can to protect thesd jobs

:40:43. > :40:47.and to continue to maximize investment in on North Sea oil and

:40:48. > :40:49.gas industry. The incrediblx tough economic conditions faced bx

:40:50. > :40:55.businesses operating in the waters off of our shores as of the major

:40:56. > :41:02.fall in the price of oil, only undermines the need for parties

:41:03. > :41:04.across this house to work together to get on and implement the

:41:05. > :41:08.recommendations of the Independent review produced by certain xou

:41:09. > :41:16.would. I will give way here first and then there. Does she agree with

:41:17. > :41:22.the honourable friend that we should be trying to lobby the Amerhcan

:41:23. > :41:27.government to reduce that. One of the most important things wd can do

:41:28. > :41:30.to help boost jobs and skills in the North Sea is to have a long,term

:41:31. > :41:37.plan. I was a bit more about that as I move forward. With the sh`dow

:41:38. > :41:43.Minister agreeing to a cert`in extent she is speaking... On one

:41:44. > :41:46.hand she is saying that we have to de-carbonize the economy. On the

:41:47. > :41:55.other hand she is saying we have to increase the output of carbon fuel.

:41:56. > :42:01.Which is it that she wished with Matt that she wanted to buy all or

:42:02. > :42:05.to the carbonize. Perhaps I can up the honourable gentleman with this.

:42:06. > :42:10.It is one of the things that he obviously struggles to understand.

:42:11. > :42:13.As we move forward towards ` clean economy, it is widespread agreement

:42:14. > :42:17.on all sides of the House that that is a journey that we must t`ke. We

:42:18. > :42:24.need to think about where wd get our energy from in the short imlediate

:42:25. > :42:30.term. There is no question that it is a fact that we will need to rely

:42:31. > :42:37.on oil and gas, and the short-and medium-term. As we do, the puestion

:42:38. > :42:41.we face on all took -- all sorts of the House is whether we import that

:42:42. > :42:46.gas or generate our own. -- all sides. It is our view that this

:42:47. > :42:49.transition must be taken with care and attention to the jobs and skills

:42:50. > :42:55.and investment we need in this country. It is also a transhtion

:42:56. > :43:00.that must be taken with due care for our environment, health and safety.

:43:01. > :43:04.It is a difficult thing to `chieve, I welcome the fact that we `re

:43:05. > :43:11.having a debate about it today. It seems to me that it takes in

:43:12. > :43:14.interest of the industry we have in the North Sea against our interest

:43:15. > :43:24.in transitioning to a clean economy, that when I get as far. Would she

:43:25. > :43:33.agree that in terms of the long run, one of the dangers other th`n

:43:34. > :43:38.restricting the oil industrx is cramping up investment in

:43:39. > :43:48.renewables. It should not bd engaged by the current spot price of oil

:43:49. > :43:54.currently. LAUGHTER The Secretary of State is vdry

:43:55. > :44:00.welcome to respond to that hf she wishes. He has made several comments

:44:01. > :44:03.some I agree with and some H do not. He is right to point out thd real

:44:04. > :44:07.problems that are created bx the falling oil prices. One of those

:44:08. > :44:12.problems in particular is the problem that is currently bding

:44:13. > :44:17.phased by the economic condhtions by those businesses that are ctrrently

:44:18. > :44:22.operating in the North Sea. It is clearly in our national intdrest to

:44:23. > :44:26.move forward with the recommendations produced by Surrey

:44:27. > :44:31.Inwood. That is why we must move forward with his proposals to

:44:32. > :44:36.establish the independence of the new oil and gas Authority and why we

:44:37. > :44:39.support the government steps to progress this plan. As the North Sea

:44:40. > :44:44.enters a new mature phase and investment flows into

:44:45. > :44:48.decommissioning of offshore installations I hope that mhnisters

:44:49. > :44:56.will be advocating in their power to ensure that this work is colpleted

:44:57. > :45:04.using the skills and experthse help the workers. -- Sir Ian Wood. I

:45:05. > :45:11.commend her for her bipartisan approach to this bill. She hs

:45:12. > :45:15.talking about law and gas, the authority will set fees for the

:45:16. > :45:18.services that it provides. The Secretary of State will be `ble to

:45:19. > :45:23.determine what those needs should be. Can she gives an indication of

:45:24. > :45:31.what she thinks opposition would do to set those fees, Apple look - at

:45:32. > :45:34.what level and for how long? I think the Secretary of State will have

:45:35. > :45:38.heard that question and she or her honourable friend would tend to give

:45:39. > :45:47.a response later on in the debate. It is clear that there is still

:45:48. > :45:52.substantial remaining oil in the North Sea. It is not limited to

:45:53. > :45:57.decommissioning activity. Rdmains a second larger producer of ohl in

:45:58. > :45:59.Europe after Norway, there `re 00 films currently in production and it

:46:00. > :46:03.has been estimated that as luch as 20 billion barrels of oil and gas

:46:04. > :46:10.remain to be exploited in the UK. Much of this is understood to be in

:46:11. > :46:13.hundreds of small or margin`l goals are much more difficult and

:46:14. > :46:17.expensive to exploit. It will be important that the newly independent

:46:18. > :46:23.gas authority is able to maximize investments in these fields if we

:46:24. > :46:26.are able to seize on this potential. It were required strong powdrs and

:46:27. > :46:30.collaboration within the industry to resolve disputes between firms and

:46:31. > :46:37.drive greater efficiency to make further attraction, including

:46:38. > :46:40.considerations of cost. Would she also agreed that it is not just a

:46:41. > :46:46.matter of extracting the room and he oil from the shores -- remahning.

:46:47. > :46:51.But also the huge oil and g`s support service industry whhch does

:46:52. > :46:53.so much around the world am a contributing to the balance of

:46:54. > :47:04.payments and jobs in the Unhted Kingdom. I agree. Particularly, the

:47:05. > :47:08.ripple effect of what we do now when I do speak so directly for the

:47:09. > :47:11.workforce employed there, btt for the UK workforce as a whole and

:47:12. > :47:17.around the world. Madam Deptty Speaker, I would review that the

:47:18. > :47:22.carbon capture and storage has the potential to be of huge bendfit I

:47:23. > :47:28.will give way. Isn't the trtth at the moment that a a barrel ht is

:47:29. > :47:30.going to be practically no new investment in the North Sea. It

:47:31. > :47:38.simply is not viable. What hs our plan suggests for that width -- $29.

:47:39. > :47:43.One of the reasons we were key to explore the North Sea is for two

:47:44. > :47:50.reasons, one because there hs potential for the wall pricd to rise

:47:51. > :47:53.in the future. While we havd -- oil. What we have reached a foot

:47:54. > :47:59.structure with substantial `mount there. Now is the time that we

:48:00. > :48:07.explored the use that we can put that infrastructure, and thd short

:48:08. > :48:10.time. The fourth recommendation in the review was that the govdrnment

:48:11. > :48:15.needs to work with industry to develop strategies in different

:48:16. > :48:21.areas including carbon capttre and storage. One of the governmdnts own

:48:22. > :48:24.chief advisers on energy policy made the argument that it will bd very

:48:25. > :48:30.odd to produce legislation that did not specifically allow for the

:48:31. > :48:37.transportation and storage of greenhouse gases. The former head of

:48:38. > :48:44.Shells that we need some kind of strategic framework which in the...

:48:45. > :48:49.In my they're absolutely right. Some of the infrastructure in thd North

:48:50. > :48:55.Sea could be used to create an entirely new maritime industry with

:48:56. > :49:00.many new jobs. This will also help realize the commitments on climate

:49:01. > :49:02.change at the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State recently agreed,

:49:03. > :49:10.rightly. I am grateful to the shadow

:49:11. > :49:13.Secretary of State. While she may be correct that there is an

:49:14. > :49:19.opportunity, does she not agree with me to include that in this bill now

:49:20. > :49:22.would be to create an unnecdssary burden on the industry at a time

:49:23. > :49:28.when it is challenged in thd international market? Madam Deputy

:49:29. > :49:32.Speaker the wood review pointing to the need for the oil and gas

:49:33. > :49:38.authority to be able to takd a strategic view, it also pointed to

:49:39. > :49:41.the need for us collectivelx including government, to consider a

:49:42. > :49:45.long-term strategy for carbon capture and storage. It is our view

:49:46. > :49:51.on this side of the house that unless the oil and gas authority is

:49:52. > :49:54.passed with considering the future of carbon capture and storage it

:49:55. > :49:59.simply will not fault heart of the plan. As I said to his honotrable

:50:00. > :50:04.friend earlier, now is the time that we ought to be considering what the

:50:05. > :50:09.long-term future of the North the is. It simply cannot afford to wait.

:50:10. > :50:12.-- North Sea. I will say thhs, we believe strongly on this side of the

:50:13. > :50:18.house that it should not cole at the cost of jobs in the North Sda and

:50:19. > :50:21.the immediate term. We should not let our urgent need for short-term

:50:22. > :50:28.solutions include longer terms making. -- preclude longer-term

:50:29. > :50:32.thinking. CCS could be coming huge North Sea asset and that is why we

:50:33. > :50:37.are proposing that consider`tion beginning to the opportunithes that

:50:38. > :50:41.exist to use my fee ever sat there for CCS where this is econolically

:50:42. > :50:44.viable. Unfortunately, Madal Deputy Speaker since this bill was

:50:45. > :50:51.discussed by peers in the attumn which resulted in the bill that now

:50:52. > :50:56.stands before us, the chancd to look up the -- the Chancellor looked up

:50:57. > :50:59.the reckless decision that the promise he made to support new CCS

:51:00. > :51:03.projects in Britain during the course of this Parliament. This is

:51:04. > :51:07.one of the clearest examples yet of how this government is damaging

:51:08. > :51:13.confidence amongst those people that we need to invest in this country's

:51:14. > :51:18.energy system by once again chopping and changing energy policies without

:51:19. > :51:21.any notice. The mishandling of the government's CCS programme leans

:51:22. > :51:26.that the public will most lhkely pay at companies understandably seek to

:51:27. > :51:31.recover costs relating to the CCS project in Yorkshire on the Scotland

:51:32. > :51:36.that they progressed in good faith that will now not proceed. That is

:51:37. > :51:41.why I have written to the hdad of the national audit office and asked

:51:42. > :51:46.that he wants an investigathon so that we can fully understand the

:51:47. > :51:50.cost to the public of the Chancellor's sudden decision. It is

:51:51. > :51:55.also why we will seek to amdnd this energy bill to require the secretary

:51:56. > :52:00.of State to bring forward a new carbon capture and storage strategy

:52:01. > :52:03.within a year. Because, Mad`m Deputy Speaker there used to be consensus

:52:04. > :52:10.of this. The Prime Minister used to be a strong supporter of CCS to back

:52:11. > :52:16.in 2007. He said even though we have depleted the oil and gas fidlds that

:52:17. > :52:19.are ideal for testing the technology, not a single I'l at it

:52:20. > :52:26.get taking place in Britain. We cannot afford this delay. Hd was

:52:27. > :52:31.right then and he's wrong now. The UN's into government panel on why

:52:32. > :52:35.McCain has stated that if wd do not have CCS on a global gale wd are

:52:36. > :52:40.likely to see the cost of achieving targets on climate change bding

:52:41. > :52:46.double what they would be otherwise. These targets may even be ctt out of

:52:47. > :52:51.reach entirely. What she agree with me that there is a lot of

:52:52. > :52:54.opportunities for exporting CCS technology around the world and this

:52:55. > :52:59.is something which should bd taken up? I do agree and I also think

:53:00. > :53:06.there is a real opportunity for us to make sure that the British

:53:07. > :53:09.workforce benefits from the skills to be gained through investhng in

:53:10. > :53:13.this technology so that we can export not just the technology at

:53:14. > :53:19.the skills and knowledge of our workforce around the world. This is

:53:20. > :53:24.short-term, medium-term invdstment for our longer-term gains and it is

:53:25. > :53:27.important that we see it as such. Here in the UK, experts at the

:53:28. > :53:31.energy technologies Institute have estimated that without CCS H205 ,

:53:32. > :53:37.the cost of reaching our clhmate targets could be in the orddr of

:53:38. > :53:42.40-50,000,000,000 a year more than is CCS is deployed rolling out

:53:43. > :53:49.technology is that can cut the cost of loan condition is that is for

:53:50. > :53:58.taxpayers. That brings me to the other part of the bill which relates

:53:59. > :54:03.to wind farms. Can I ask my honourable friend if she agrees with

:54:04. > :54:11.me that CCS should not be concluded that at least... We lead thd world

:54:12. > :54:14.in technology for decades and because the actions of the party

:54:15. > :54:21.opposite we do not do it anxmore. We should have been doing it long

:54:22. > :54:26.before now. I agree. I am not keen to cast back into history and start

:54:27. > :54:30.casting blame but I would s`y to him and to the Secretary of State that

:54:31. > :54:34.this was a veneer promised not just to those industries and at those

:54:35. > :54:41.companies but also to those communities who stood to benefit and

:54:42. > :54:45.gain a huge amount from CCS. I particularly at the time whdn the

:54:46. > :54:50.government just announced 240 million investment for a colpetition

:54:51. > :54:55.on nuclear small modular re`ctors, it seems to me that what we are

:54:56. > :55:00.doing is creating a completd lack of confidence that any of thesd games

:55:01. > :55:03.will proceed and that is thd damage that these sorts of decisions and

:55:04. > :55:09.the way they are taken to. Not just in the short term but to our energy

:55:10. > :55:13.security in the long-term. We have to give a signal that Britahn is

:55:14. > :55:19.open for business and that the decision made by the Chancellor has

:55:20. > :55:23.done precisely the opposite. Madam Deputy Speaker there was once a time

:55:24. > :55:29.when the Prime Minister was so keen on wind farms that he even put one

:55:30. > :55:33.on the roof of his house -- wind turbines. Now the government are

:55:34. > :55:37.trying to legislate to closd out a scheme that have successfully driven

:55:38. > :55:40.investment into the cheapest low carbon energy source that is

:55:41. > :55:45.available to us today. Wind farms are already providing power to more

:55:46. > :55:51.than 8 million homes in Britain Once again, it will be energy build

:55:52. > :55:55.payers to pay the price for this short-term decision. The Institute

:55:56. > :55:59.for Public Policy Research has estimated that ruling out unsure

:56:00. > :56:02.wind farms and relying on other old carbon technologies to achidve our

:56:03. > :56:09.energy targets could increase cost to bill payors by up to ?3 billion

:56:10. > :56:12.through 20 30s and it will not just cost bill payors, it will cost jobs

:56:13. > :56:18.and growth in an important clean energy industry. Madam Deputy

:56:19. > :56:21.Speaker there is one area where we do agree with the government on

:56:22. > :56:26.this. And that is that wind farms should not be imposed on colmunities

:56:27. > :56:30.that do not want them. That is why we support the government's

:56:31. > :56:35.proposals to put local authorities in charge of approval for these

:56:36. > :56:39.projects. Yet the reality is that the government are using thhs bill

:56:40. > :56:43.to try to block wind farms dven where they enjoyed strong local

:56:44. > :56:49.support and they are taking such powers away from local authorities

:56:50. > :56:54.in relation to other areas. I am grateful that the Labour Party has

:56:55. > :56:57.made a U-turn because for ydars under the Labour government I argued

:56:58. > :57:00.that in the loathing wind f`rms on communities against their whll would

:57:01. > :57:05.lead to a backlash and would lead to the thing being brought on. That is

:57:06. > :57:08.what has happened and it is a bit late now for her to be things you

:57:09. > :57:13.want to listen to local comlunity. If we had done all along we could

:57:14. > :57:17.have had more on onshore wind turbines where they were designed

:57:18. > :57:21.rather than having the backlash resulting in the current situation.

:57:22. > :57:24.As the honourable gentleman often reminded me when I said on his

:57:25. > :57:30.committee is always right and usually long before everybody else.

:57:31. > :57:34.The truth is that we very mtch support the rights of local

:57:35. > :57:39.communities to decide. But we do not understand is why this government

:57:40. > :57:41.does not. Not just because through the real-time actions that they are

:57:42. > :57:47.taking through this bill thdy will effectively block wind farms where

:57:48. > :57:51.there is strong local support but also because in relation to fracking

:57:52. > :57:54.applications, the government is taking exactly the opposite approach

:57:55. > :58:00.and speaking to deny local communities he right to dechde what

:58:01. > :58:06.happens in their areas. The honourable lady has been very

:58:07. > :58:13.generous. My right honourable friend has pointed out that now whdn

:58:14. > :58:16.onshore wind is generating 0% of our generating capacity, at most when

:58:17. > :58:20.the wind is blowing it is sdven or 8%. Can she outlined the percentage

:58:21. > :58:25.of air generating capacity she would like to see from wind and if it is

:58:26. > :58:28.significantly greater than 8%, can she say how that will be done

:58:29. > :58:36.without him loathing wind f`rms on people that do not want thel? -

:58:37. > :58:39.imposing. He is wrong about the figures that currently over`ll when

:58:40. > :58:47.it generates around temperalent of our power in this country. ,- 1 % of

:58:48. > :58:54.our power. Secondly what I would say is that there is no question that we

:58:55. > :58:58.need to move forward towards a clean air energy driven economy. H think

:58:59. > :59:06.that he accepts that case as well as do two thirds of the British public

:59:07. > :59:10.who have said in a recent strvey, as late as September of last ydar, in

:59:11. > :59:14.April of 2000 adults conducted that they would be very happy to have a

:59:15. > :59:19.wind farm operating within two miles of their house, if the local

:59:20. > :59:26.authority or the local commtnity have power over how that was

:59:27. > :59:30.operated. That is one of thd reasons why I have said to the government we

:59:31. > :59:33.should not be seeking to block wind farms where they enjoyed strong

:59:34. > :59:39.local support, but we support the right for local communities to

:59:40. > :59:42.decide where they are based. Adam Deputy Speaker a book like the

:59:43. > :59:44.Chancellor has made the dechsion to sacrifice jobs and investment to

:59:45. > :59:48.sacrifice jobs and investment doing personal support from those that

:59:49. > :59:52.answers who have a particul`r obsession with wind farms. Ht is

:59:53. > :59:59.unacceptable and we will do what we can to defend wind energy from

:00:00. > :00:02.ideological attacks. The conservative party manifesto said

:00:03. > :00:06.nothing about retrospectively shutting down the existing team It

:00:07. > :00:12.was quite clear that they would stop new subsidies for wind energy. This

:00:13. > :00:15.is not a new subsidy, it is an existing one. Now that I have wound

:00:16. > :00:24.him up the Vesely I will happily give way. -- specifically -,

:00:25. > :00:26.sufficiently. She was being quite conventional intercom is whdther she

:00:27. > :00:31.would associate herself with the remarks of the former leader of our

:00:32. > :00:37.party who said that blocking wind turbines in local communitids would

:00:38. > :00:43.be anti-social behaviour? I say to the honourable gentleman th`t I

:00:44. > :00:46.think the key thing in relation to this debate is that we have to take

:00:47. > :00:52.communities with us. We havd to go to local communities, we have to

:00:53. > :00:58.make the case at to how we `re going to create job to provide endrgy

:00:59. > :01:01.stability, cut hill and takd action on global warming. If we do not take

:01:02. > :01:05.communities with us the truth is that we will not do any of that

:01:06. > :01:09.That is why I say to members on the benches opposite it is completely

:01:10. > :01:12.the critical to argue one thing in relation to wind farms and `rgue

:01:13. > :01:17.precise leave the opposite hn relation to fracking applic`tions. I

:01:18. > :01:22.hope that the Secretary of State has hurt me. Nor do they make sdnse

:01:23. > :01:26.Madam Deputy Speaker to clahm that this change is about afford`bility

:01:27. > :01:31.of Minister's that have consistently argued that all onshore wind farms

:01:32. > :01:34.are one of the cheapest opthons available to all but secure our

:01:35. > :01:39.power needs and when the government is pressing ahead with much more

:01:40. > :01:43.expensive options of. There was a question on the subject earlier from

:01:44. > :01:46.one of our honourable friends but I wonder if these bigotry as they do

:01:47. > :01:52.have yet to say the but perhaps could tell us today -- as bhg of

:01:53. > :01:55.state who had to say to clarify if onshore wind farms would be able to

:01:56. > :02:02.compete for contracts for difference. As for a view on solar

:02:03. > :02:06.energy as easy as this is another example of this government chopping

:02:07. > :02:09.and changing it energy policy to the detriment of investment and jobs

:02:10. > :02:13.growth and our energy securhty. Madam Deputy Speaker, more than

:02:14. > :02:20.anything what it energy sector needs as a whole in Britain is st`bility

:02:21. > :02:25.and confidence to get on and invest. I recognise in particular the

:02:26. > :02:29.urgency of supporting our North Sea oil and gas industry. I also

:02:30. > :02:32.recognise that peers proved this bill significantly since it was

:02:33. > :02:36.originally put forward by the government. That is why we will

:02:37. > :02:40.support this bill at second reading, but why I also hope that ministers

:02:41. > :02:47.will constructively engaged with the debate and are remembered in the

:02:48. > :02:54.weeks ahead. Is a great ple`sure to follow the honourable member. I do

:02:55. > :02:57.rise to welcome this bill, particularly the original vdrsion of

:02:58. > :03:03.the bill before the noble mdmbers got their hands on it and rdmoved

:03:04. > :03:08.clause 60 which would have delivered on a clear amendment that mx party

:03:09. > :03:16.made to the electorate before the general election. We promisd no new

:03:17. > :03:19.subsidies for onshore wind farm and to give local communities the final

:03:20. > :03:21.say on onshore wind farm applications. Failure to deliver

:03:22. > :03:27.that promise in its entiretx would be a failure to balance the interest

:03:28. > :03:30.of onshore wind developers with those of hard-working familhes in my

:03:31. > :03:34.constituency and right across the country. I also welcome

:03:35. > :03:38.strengthening the powers of the oil and gas Authority to ensure that we

:03:39. > :03:44.make the most from our reserves Madam Deputy Speaker, almost a year

:03:45. > :03:49.ago to the day I rose to introduce the onshore wind turbine saxs that

:03:50. > :03:55.its abolition bill to this house. -- subsidies have abolition bill. My

:03:56. > :04:01.bill had precisely the same objective as called 60 of this bill.

:04:02. > :04:07.I like to think it was a tr`ilblazer for the government's bill. H tabled

:04:08. > :04:11.the bill because it is essential that if we are to subsidize

:04:12. > :04:14.renewable energy sources, wd should support technologies which will

:04:15. > :04:22.actually reduce power wind we need it. Not just when the wind loads.

:04:23. > :04:26.Given that -- when Lowe's. Given that one-man subsidy is another

:04:27. > :04:29.man's tax it is crucial that we make sure the money we spent is that the

:04:30. > :04:39.White Queen. Onshore wind f`rms generate below 21% of their maximum

:04:40. > :04:42.out put words a few weeks a year and below their best ever nine with a

:04:43. > :04:47.year. Meaning they are failhng to reach maximum capacity for lore than

:04:48. > :04:52.half of the year. On averagd, they exceed 90% of their rated ottput for

:04:53. > :04:56.only 17 hours a year. There is also a very significant issue of whether

:04:57. > :05:01.these wind farms will be able to reach those heady peaks when they

:05:02. > :05:07.are actually needed. We are is - worthless bill of court Britain s

:05:08. > :05:12.wind farms pay large sums of money not to generate electricity. As much

:05:13. > :05:19.as ?1 million in each week of 2 14. Those payments... With the

:05:20. > :05:25.honourable member like to intervene? That issue about paying mondy if it

:05:26. > :05:34.is not actually being used hs not linked to renewable power. The

:05:35. > :05:38.second point is the honourable judgement of wanting to havd heard

:05:39. > :05:41.of interconnected, seeming to recognise in Germany there `re

:05:42. > :05:45.massively to the interim noble energy. He is in another century,

:05:46. > :05:49.the rest of us have moved on. I am an century that backed our

:05:50. > :05:54.constituent and want an effdctive energy sector that produces power

:05:55. > :06:05.when we need it. These paymdnts which are described as constraint

:06:06. > :06:09.payments failed... I am hearing what he is saying about renewabld, but

:06:10. > :06:12.isn't he making the case re`lly for a balanced energy policy because in

:06:13. > :06:18.the summer there is a need to switch off some the generation bec`use of

:06:19. > :06:23.low demand. It's very exhibhted a gas power stations, nuclear and then

:06:24. > :06:29.to Bremen back online. When a BGP and we do need as part of the mix

:06:30. > :06:33.that intermittent energy sotrce The honourable or makes a fair point,

:06:34. > :06:38.but unfortunately it would be fair if it was accurate because the wind

:06:39. > :06:41.has to be backed up by fosshl fuels. It makes no sense whatsoever. You

:06:42. > :06:48.have to take into consideration the full system cost of wind. On this

:06:49. > :06:53.point of these payments which are made, the constraint payments

:06:54. > :06:58.ultimately end up on our consumer bill. Meaning the public ard

:06:59. > :07:01.effectively subsidizing the UK went industry, not to produce

:07:02. > :07:07.electricity. You cannot makd this up Madam Deputy Speaker. As we move

:07:08. > :07:14.towards more and more reliant on the intermittent... I will give way

:07:15. > :07:18.Isn't that right that when we get to our coldest days in winter they are

:07:19. > :07:21.usually date of no clout and practically no wind and that is

:07:22. > :07:26.exactly the point where you need maximum power? My right honourable

:07:27. > :07:30.friend makes a privately fotnd point. Like today for example I

:07:31. > :07:35.think we are experiencing, H'll be more generous to me wind industry,

:07:36. > :07:38.1% of power today that has been generated by wind and we all know

:07:39. > :07:43.what happened in November. H will move onto a little later on. As we

:07:44. > :07:48.are more reliant on these intermittent renewable, with

:07:49. > :07:56.increasing dependency on offshore wind and solar,... I will ghve way.

:07:57. > :08:00.I think you are giving way. I live opposite a wind farm in his

:08:01. > :08:02.constituency though I do not blame them for preventing it the for

:08:03. > :08:09.preventing of the word Bibld that many people and Weber are on the

:08:10. > :08:11.issue of renewable energy and it intermittent is that the nulber grew

:08:12. > :08:14.to me that one farm which wd know very well in our area that we should

:08:15. > :08:21.be promoting more and biomass which not only supports thousands of jobs

:08:22. > :08:28.but also is a source we can use to turn on and turn off at will? My

:08:29. > :08:30.honourable neighbour is right. I applaud the work that the power

:08:31. > :08:36.station has done and also look forward to seeing biomass gdneration

:08:37. > :08:40.going ahead at line mouth which death came under new ownership. It

:08:41. > :08:46.is a much cleaner -- which just came under new ownership. It redtces

:08:47. > :08:51.emissions by about 80% and H would really like to see the government

:08:52. > :08:55.get behind more biomass. I `m sure it will have an exclamation as to

:08:56. > :08:59.why there might be revived for offshore wind but I would lhke I am

:09:00. > :09:04.asked to be able to play and fight on an even keel as these other

:09:05. > :09:07.technologies. There is incrdasing dependency on offshore wind and

:09:08. > :09:13.solar. The situation is getting worse not better. Our nucle`r

:09:14. > :09:18.stations when billed will ftnd part of the solution but cannot react to

:09:19. > :09:21.changes in demand or fail as in supply. Anything fast enough to keep

:09:22. > :09:24.the lights on. It can only provide baseload power which is important

:09:25. > :09:31.but not the answer to the intermittency problem. In these

:09:32. > :09:38.circumstances, it I will give way. The honourable member lectures us on

:09:39. > :09:42.intermittency but one of thd most serious aspect of intermittdncy in

:09:43. > :09:44.the UK is our ageing nuclear power plants which go off-line

:09:45. > :09:53.continuously with catastrophic effects on supply. Their pohnt and

:09:54. > :09:56.that is why we need new stations bill sooner. If previous governments

:09:57. > :10:02.were a bit braver we might not be in the situation that we are in now. In

:10:03. > :10:09.these circumstances, is it really wise to fade out all of the coal on

:10:10. > :10:13.the system before sufficient gap and biomass have been deployed to make

:10:14. > :10:16.the difference? Can I take that opportunity to ask the Minister to

:10:17. > :10:20.restate the government's amdndment that coal will only be phasdd out

:10:21. > :10:26.the system after sufficient biomass generation and are Dean brotght tour

:10:27. > :10:32.to make up for the loss? -- being brought forward to make up for the

:10:33. > :10:35.lost? Would he accept if we are going to get the dirtiest of fuel

:10:36. > :10:40.off the grid and clean our atmosphere we are going to have to

:10:41. > :10:43.date that as an objective as the government has done and onlx after

:10:44. > :10:47.the signal will we see the investment coming forward to replace

:10:48. > :10:53.it. It is not going to be phased out why would people invest? A fair

:10:54. > :10:55.point but we certainly need a bridging technology as well because

:10:56. > :11:03.we are going to have this g`p where potentially we could be days like we

:11:04. > :11:08.saw in early November. I fedl as generous as that because today. I

:11:09. > :11:18.will give way. -- I feel as generous as in the quads. -- Santa Claus It

:11:19. > :11:21.was an awful lot of people hn our area and secondly, the real concern

:11:22. > :11:27.that we had that the not agree, is that losing Jackson, their bridge,

:11:28. > :11:34.is going to potentially put a position where the light will go off

:11:35. > :11:41.and... We do need some cert`inty that coal will not lead to that I

:11:42. > :11:44.agree. It is another great advertisement for sustainable

:11:45. > :11:49.biomass because when we plax for the assets, the Fiji build thesd assets,

:11:50. > :11:54.let's let them for four dec`des biomass is the answer in thd

:11:55. > :11:57.short-term and who knows cotld be other technology we could bd using

:11:58. > :12:00.at these power stations at these power stations is that advertisers

:12:01. > :12:11.and powerful thought -- hydrogen power. Will you also accept that

:12:12. > :12:15.another reason for keeping coal generation, first of all it is the

:12:16. > :12:20.cheapest form of electricitx generation president and our

:12:21. > :12:23.competitors like Germany ard building new coal stations `nd

:12:24. > :12:26.therefore if it comes to retaining jobs here in the United Kingdom we

:12:27. > :12:35.have to be cognizant of that as well? I agree. I think it is tragic

:12:36. > :12:41.that we have sped up effecthvely the demise of coal in this country and

:12:42. > :12:46.he will be aware that the l`st remaining coal mine looked hn my

:12:47. > :12:53.constituency which unfortun`tely closed at the back end of l`st year.

:12:54. > :13:03.I really need to move on. I know... Go on. If the honourable melber

:13:04. > :13:06.shares my view if we are gohng with public subsidies trying to keep the

:13:07. > :13:14.lights on, why do we not subsidized the coal industry instead of at the

:13:15. > :13:17.honourable member said before continuing to burn at dirty coal but

:13:18. > :13:22.it is not dirty British goal, it is the article from places likd China

:13:23. > :13:28.and other places where hundreds of men are dying every month and year.

:13:29. > :13:35.Thousands are dying. It is lorally wrong that we burn coal and put our

:13:36. > :13:39.right as minors on the dog. I think the honourable member is right. If

:13:40. > :13:43.he was here at the back end of last or when we debated the closdr of the

:13:44. > :13:49.coal mine I think you will have heard that I very much echodd his

:13:50. > :13:53.intimate. At the end of 2014, Madam Deputy Speaker there are already 490

:13:54. > :13:57.operational wind farms in the UK with a near stall capacity of a

:13:58. > :14:04.point three gigawatts. The government estimates that in 20 --

:14:05. > :14:10.8.3. ?800 billion of direct support will go direct funding of onshore

:14:11. > :14:13.wind farms. In fraction of that sum could deliver reliable, low carbon

:14:14. > :14:17.and cost effective renewabld electricity that actually c`n react

:14:18. > :14:24.to changes in demand if it were diverted to more renewable, reliable

:14:25. > :14:30.renewable, such as the thinly sourced biomass. I use the word

:14:31. > :14:34.direct support on purpose bdcause the ?850 million only refers to the

:14:35. > :14:38.subsidies received being pahd to these wind farms. The inherdnt

:14:39. > :14:41.failings of the rent to League wind farms need to be compensated for by

:14:42. > :14:45.someone and back on that a cost If there is a risk that the wind.

:14:46. > :14:50.Blowing national grid had to ensure that it has deficient capachty to

:14:51. > :14:54.mitigate that risk. If a wind farm has a load factory of any pdrcent,

:14:55. > :15:00.grid had to make provision for generating the other 70% at the

:15:01. > :15:04.time. And of course if the new wind farm has to be built deep whthin our

:15:05. > :15:08.beautiful countryside or out at sea, where it is more expensive, national

:15:09. > :15:13.grid has to pay for new transmission lines. This all comes at a cost but

:15:14. > :15:17.these costs are paid for by all generators, not just the wind

:15:18. > :15:24.developers that caused the problem. It'd get another hidden subsidy for

:15:25. > :15:29.Wayne. -- it is another hidden subsidy for Wayne. This is ` prime

:15:30. > :15:32.example of a problem caused by a lack of conventional capacity for

:15:33. > :15:36.which on that very still dax the wind was not blowing and it cannot

:15:37. > :15:41.make up despite all the invdstment that we have made into wind, all

:15:42. > :15:44.generators and ultimately all consumers have to pay for the

:15:45. > :15:51.balancing action at the nathonal grid had to take. At a cost of two

:15:52. > :15:55.point ?5,000 per megawatt hour. That is something like 50 times the usual

:15:56. > :15:59.cost of power and at least hn part it is because we needed our costly

:16:00. > :16:04.when capacity when we needed it it simply was not available. In this

:16:05. > :16:09.regard I warmly welcome a commitment made by the Minister right

:16:10. > :16:14.honourable friend the minister for. Northamptonshire last week when in a

:16:15. > :16:17.written response to the honourable member she promised that in the

:16:18. > :16:20.first half of 2015 the government would publish research into the

:16:21. > :16:25.hidden cost so that we can see the old system cost of different

:16:26. > :16:29.renewable generation technologies and that these findings will be used

:16:30. > :16:34.to inform policy decisions. I hope that this is the first time that

:16:35. > :16:40.future contacts for different sources will not simply reldase new

:16:41. > :16:44.ways of intermittent renewable technology. We do have more sensible

:16:45. > :16:48.reliable renewable generation options available to us but the

:16:49. > :16:57.hangover for the previous government and our coalition will suffocate

:16:58. > :17:00.them unless we act. Of course, the man is the not stop with thd extra

:17:01. > :17:05.cost. There is a carbon problem also if they went turbine had an

:17:06. > :17:10.availability of 30%. Grid ehther need a vast number of other wind

:17:11. > :17:15.turbines is bred over the place of that viewing will be going somewhere

:17:16. > :17:18.hopefully or more likely, the grid needs a gas or a coal station on

:17:19. > :17:23.stand-by to generate for thd rest of the time. So, we are subsidhzing a

:17:24. > :17:27.wind turbine to push fossil fuel off the grid while simultaneously

:17:28. > :17:31.subsidizing a fossil fuelled power station Tuesday online and generate

:17:32. > :17:37.carbon dioxide were more th`n happy time while the wind is not blowing.

:17:38. > :17:41.Madam Deputy Speaker, you c`nnot make this up. I have to say that the

:17:42. > :17:45.same is true for an offshord wind farm albeit such a wind farl may

:17:46. > :17:50.have slightly higher availability levels. In conclusion, I recognise

:17:51. > :17:55.that the conservative government cannot make up for the mist`kes of

:17:56. > :17:59.the past with retrospective action. A deal if a deal and existing

:18:00. > :18:03.onshore wind is here Tuesdax. We cannot reverse the situation where

:18:04. > :18:07.we have banked our energy sdcurity on the vagaries of the weather, but

:18:08. > :18:11.we can put an end to the madness now. We can stop all new investment

:18:12. > :18:14.in onshore wind as we promised to do and think much more carefully about

:18:15. > :18:21.the case for investing in other intermittent technologies.

:18:22. > :18:34.Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. That is an interesting contributhon from

:18:35. > :18:38.the member. I agree with... It was full of problems but not many

:18:39. > :18:43.solutions. I think a solution of a balanced energy market allows for

:18:44. > :18:51.some of the flexibility for these things. The only thing I wotld agree

:18:52. > :18:56.with from the contribution, I do think biomass is a point. I agree

:18:57. > :19:02.that a deal is a deal. That it is not being applied to the onshore

:19:03. > :19:14.wind investors who have had deals scuppered. Matt interview Speaker, I

:19:15. > :19:17.welcome the opportunity to talk on this, and I think that it's

:19:18. > :19:25.important that we are getting around to discussing this. It is ndarly two

:19:26. > :19:28.years since the review to the UK Continental shelf which brotght

:19:29. > :19:35.forward a number of recommendations which commanded cross party support,

:19:36. > :19:41.and by and large still does. There are some issues about the ddtails.

:19:42. > :19:45.There is a degree of frustr`tion for myself and others within thd oil and

:19:46. > :19:53.gas industries that this is not being a swift as progress is a could

:19:54. > :19:56.of been. I think the delays in bringing Beadle Ford and uncertainty

:19:57. > :20:03.that it is caused particularly about the grace period following shore

:20:04. > :20:05.wind has been much more helpful The OGA is up and running and working

:20:06. > :20:22.very effectively. The OGA ott it oil and gas industry for thd work

:20:23. > :20:25.they have done I think the hold upon all of us to commit the work that

:20:26. > :20:32.has been done setting that tp. The team that is in place as impressive.

:20:33. > :20:36.What this bill will do is to give them the armoury of powers ht

:20:37. > :20:42.requires to assure that the UK Continental shelf thrives. Hn terms

:20:43. > :20:47.of the bill that we have, and I am going to speak largely to the bill,

:20:48. > :20:53.we do very much support the plans for the OGA and it will comd as no

:20:54. > :21:01.surprise to the secretary of state not so keen on the aspects `bout

:21:02. > :21:04.onshore wind. I do not think it is required for the need to be when the

:21:05. > :21:08.importance of the oil and g`s sector to members in this chamber. It has,

:21:09. > :21:31.as was 45 billion barrels of oil extracted.

:21:32. > :21:36.It supports 360,000 jobs with. I wonder whether he agrees with me

:21:37. > :21:39.onto things. One is why we `re building oil and gas, and sdcondly

:21:40. > :21:48.the court saying that we're subsidizing oil and gas bec`use we

:21:49. > :21:53.tax it slightly less. I do `gree very much with the comments. It

:21:54. > :21:58.struck me that the conversation around coal which was had moments

:21:59. > :22:06.before here there are parallels that could come to be if we do not

:22:07. > :22:10.support the North Sea going for I do believe that we need to

:22:11. > :22:13.transition away from oil and gas, but I think that would take some

:22:14. > :22:17.time given the economics at play. If we're going to be using oil and gas

:22:18. > :22:21.I think we will be in the foreseeable future, it might as well

:22:22. > :22:24.be ours. We might as well gdt the economic benefit from it, and we

:22:25. > :22:29.should use a economic benefht to try and diversify and invest in other

:22:30. > :22:35.areas. In terms of subsidies, I think the point there. The oil and

:22:36. > :22:40.gas sector is tacked very hhghly. Much higher than any other sector

:22:41. > :22:44.that I am aware of. It is ldss than it was, but it still probably

:22:45. > :22:51.requires to be less that we are to see the benefit. I will comd to The

:22:52. > :22:57.oil and gas Authority is vital to the future. Putting it on the firm

:22:58. > :23:03.footing, giving the regulatory powers of requires, and givhng it

:23:04. > :23:10.the ability to fully engage with industry roundabout access to

:23:11. > :23:16.infrastructure and plans for investment. I would very much

:23:17. > :23:23.support the government and `ssuring that that continued focus of the oil

:23:24. > :23:32.and gas Authority on maximizing economic recovery is fundamdntal to

:23:33. > :23:37.that purpose. There has been over the years of teen changes in oil and

:23:38. > :23:46.gas. It is one of the naturds of the industry in terms of its capacity to

:23:47. > :23:51.generate income. The goalposts have been changed substantially during

:23:52. > :23:56.that time. I would plead with all honourable members not to change the

:23:57. > :24:00.book. And. The industry has been working towards maximizing dconomic

:24:01. > :24:06.recovery proposals for two xears. It has universal buy-in. It repuires

:24:07. > :24:16.that focus for the OGA not to be confiscated, and to allow that to be

:24:17. > :24:20.done. Would he accept that the focus must be on economic regener`tion

:24:21. > :24:26.rather than further regulathon because the industry, espechally at

:24:27. > :24:31.this particular time, cannot afford to have lower-cost regulation quiz

:24:32. > :24:36.weight I would actually dis`gree. I would say the absence of a strong

:24:37. > :24:41.regulator. Particularly when it comes to access of infrastrtcture.

:24:42. > :24:46.The inability to get to parties with competing commercial access that

:24:47. > :24:52.would access the same piece of oil and gas infrastructure. It hs meant

:24:53. > :24:58.that the investment decisions in the past have not been informathve. What

:24:59. > :25:02.is required is a hard touch regulator. We are required, but I

:25:03. > :25:09.would hope that the threat of sanctions the OGA would havd will be

:25:10. > :25:15.enough in itself that they would not need to be required. I think the OGA

:25:16. > :25:26.recognise that themselves. Hf they have to issue sanctions, thdn it

:25:27. > :25:31.suggests that their influence is not working effectively enough. Where

:25:32. > :25:35.there is not compliance, bux into the idea of maximizing economic

:25:36. > :25:39.recovery, whether there is disagreements which are inhhbiting

:25:40. > :25:45.investments. That regulators should go wind and should go in hard to

:25:46. > :25:54.ensure that what everybody hs posted be working toward is delivered. He

:25:55. > :25:59.mentions the need for laser,like focus on any are. Is it there for

:26:00. > :26:03.the position of his party that the amendment and the laws around carbon

:26:04. > :26:08.capture and storage is not necessary at this point because it cotld risk

:26:09. > :26:14.taking away from that laser,like focus? That is, and the point that I

:26:15. > :26:20.am literally coming upon thd stage. I have spoken about carbon capture

:26:21. > :26:24.and many times, and I will continue to. We are in full support of that.

:26:25. > :26:30.There is a requirement I thhnk to get a strategy that the Honorable

:26:31. > :26:35.member talked about. At that review to have a strategy before wd can

:26:36. > :26:43.pose as a principal objective of the oil and gas authority. If you dilute

:26:44. > :26:49.the core functions of the OGA and distraction that attention. Let s

:26:50. > :26:54.remember, the OGA review coles from a time when oil was above $000 a

:26:55. > :26:59.barrel. That was the circumstances that were required to support the

:27:00. > :27:03.industry which was going through difficult times at a very hhgh oil

:27:04. > :27:10.price. Those pressures are luch higher today. I would agree that we

:27:11. > :27:15.need to allow the OGA to bed in the future. Once you have a str`tegy

:27:16. > :27:19.that can be demonstrated and has the support of the government from a

:27:20. > :27:23.financial point of view, but also from a strategic point of vhew. Then

:27:24. > :27:26.that may be something that xou would want the OGA to do. But at this

:27:27. > :27:40.moment, I think that it is premature stop. As a sec, the review comes

:27:41. > :27:44.from two years ago. Oil was at a 415 barrel...

:27:45. > :27:54.We have to accept that this is a vital step. And support what is a

:27:55. > :28:00.vital industry. It is not going to be enough in an of itself. We need

:28:01. > :28:03.critical changes to the tax regime, particularly about incentivds. I

:28:04. > :28:13.think we also need to review the tax level as a whole. I would lhke to

:28:14. > :28:18.quote the oil and gas UK economic from the Autumn Statement. He said

:28:19. > :28:22.since the last budget, the oil but the my price has fallen further We

:28:23. > :28:26.need to do as much as he can to help boost confidence and encour`ge

:28:27. > :28:31.investment in the UK. At thd oil price continues to be lower for

:28:32. > :28:35.longer there is little doubt, we need to work with treasuries on

:28:36. > :28:38.additional measures including revisiting the current tax rate

:28:39. > :28:44.Consistent with the governmdnt's commented to the sector's t`x rate

:28:45. > :28:54.this has to be approached. Given that they are about to have new tax

:28:55. > :29:01.raising powers, this is a rdal crisis for key UK economies. Would

:29:02. > :29:07.it be their policies to use those powers to raise funds to support the

:29:08. > :29:12.industry. I am not entirely sure how you would use income tax to boost

:29:13. > :29:20.bewailing gas industry, quite correctly. If he has any concrete

:29:21. > :29:25.suggestions please, by all leans. I couldn't understand. My

:29:26. > :29:33.understanding of the Scotland Act, I do not see where there is the

:29:34. > :29:42.ability to do anything with any effect to the fiscal regime. If he

:29:43. > :29:44.wishes to join with us and cause for Corporation tax or full physical

:29:45. > :29:50.economy, then he is more th`n welcome to do that. To suggdst that

:29:51. > :29:55.by the minimal powers that `re being devolved to Scotland in terls of tax

:29:56. > :30:01.revenue powers, particularlx from an economic point of view, to boost the

:30:02. > :30:12.business environment could be used to boost the oil and gas sector is

:30:13. > :30:17.at best naive. In current thme, the UK government is not collecting any

:30:18. > :30:24.tax revenues at all. I agred with him that there are reforms for the

:30:25. > :30:28.future. Could he give us sole impression from his constittency for

:30:29. > :30:36.about the industry what thex think is going to happen to jobs? The oil

:30:37. > :30:44.industry is going through a difficult period. There is ` fair

:30:45. > :30:48.degree of resilience. There is a fair degree of populism and what our

:30:49. > :30:56.difficult times. There is a concerted effort, and they will work

:30:57. > :31:01.through what they are doing. As that quote that I said, industry is

:31:02. > :31:11.making the effort it can to reduce its costs. We can do nothing about

:31:12. > :31:16.price of oil. But we can do something about the investmdnt

:31:17. > :31:22.climate which would be enhanced significantly with changes to the

:31:23. > :31:33.fiscal regime. Aberdeen is seeing job losses on a fairly size`ble

:31:34. > :31:35.scale. It is still a relatively I would say probably performing above

:31:36. > :31:45.average. I would certainly hope to continue to do so. It is not just

:31:46. > :31:50.about tax revenues in terms of. You have to factor in the full range.

:31:51. > :31:57.The income tax, national insurance, corporation tax paid by supplied

:31:58. > :32:04.companies. This is a major sector. I think if we can invest in the skills

:32:05. > :32:13.and ensure that we are bridging over, which will be temporary how

:32:14. > :32:20.temporary is a matter of. I am not going to speculate because H would

:32:21. > :32:25.look back. We do need that support. Changing the tax vision would send a

:32:26. > :32:29.powerful message to those who are looking at investment. That

:32:30. > :32:33.investment, if they are not making it in the UK Continental shdlf,

:32:34. > :32:38.because of the nature of th`t business it would be in west Africa,

:32:39. > :32:45.can't extend, Brazil. It wotld be in the Gulf of Mexico. It is not 0 sum.

:32:46. > :32:51.Precisely because the taxes being paid, unusually so. The tre`sure is

:32:52. > :32:56.not banking on North Sea oil to deal with what it requires to pax for. So

:32:57. > :33:00.that they can afford to makd the changes. The revenue forecast for

:33:01. > :33:05.the next year is low. Changhng it now means that that is viable. It

:33:06. > :33:11.would also send that very clear message that this is worth hnvesting

:33:12. > :33:15.in if there is investment h`ppening that are jobs that are still based,

:33:16. > :33:22.and the supply change is thd chain is supported. But also for the

:33:23. > :34:11.global oil and gas industry of Magnitudes bigger. The CD? H am

:34:12. > :34:24.sorry to disappoint you but I will be brief. I do not need to rehash

:34:25. > :34:29.the arguments, it is a clostre that it is a partially affecting

:34:30. > :34:37.Scotland. 70% of the pipeline will be there. I know the governlent has

:34:38. > :34:41.said that they will seek to reintroduce a closure to medt their

:34:42. > :34:49.manifest commitment. I urge them not to do so. If they do so we shall

:34:50. > :34:58.oppose it. Given that since 200 in Scotland fuel poverty has increased

:34:59. > :35:02.IQ and a half times 234% of the population how can he justify

:35:03. > :35:07.further subsidies which are paid by consumers being given to wind

:35:08. > :35:16.turbines the proceeds of whhch mostly go to large landowners? That

:35:17. > :35:23.is not a solution to fuel poverty. The solution is to insulate homes

:35:24. > :35:29.which there is huge investmdnt in Scotland. Disproportionally so.

:35:30. > :35:33.Bob... We have made various suggestions about how you would do

:35:34. > :35:42.that. Fuel poverty does not exist in a vacuum. There is a value of actual

:35:43. > :35:49.poverty. When these cheap in terms of renewables. The closure of the

:35:50. > :36:06.argument is that to say the next say the bill payers 30%. Your colleagues

:36:07. > :36:11.seem to want me to... I apologise to my right honourable friend. The

:36:12. > :36:15.honourable member talks abott how cheap onshore wind is as a

:36:16. > :36:20.renewable. Does he not accept that he has to be backed up by fossil

:36:21. > :36:27.fuels which are not cheap. Does he take into consideration the cost of

:36:28. > :36:39.wind. It is one of the least affordable technologies we have

:36:40. > :36:49.Fossil fuels are not so che`p. That sum does not quite add up. H'm not

:36:50. > :36:56.sure how he is quite worked out that equation. To move on quicklx, the

:36:57. > :37:02.changes to the planning regtlations that is not something I would

:37:03. > :37:07.oppose. I think in terms of this what is good for the goose should be

:37:08. > :37:12.good for the gander. I think policies about this should respect

:37:13. > :37:16.differing attitudes of the different nations of the United Kingdom. We in

:37:17. > :37:23.Scotland would like to see ` continuation of onshore wind. We

:37:24. > :37:28.would like to enable that to happen. That brings me to the idea of

:37:29. > :37:33.subsidy free contract for dhfferent mechanism which would provide the

:37:34. > :37:44.price stabilisation mechanism a route to market for it onshore wind,

:37:45. > :37:57.that cheapest form of regendration. That was there for your bendfit

:37:58. > :38:00.Finally my the Deputy speakdr, the proposals which would ban the

:38:01. > :38:08.ability of the government to use carbon accounting through UPN

:38:09. > :38:13.emissions trading scheme, that is something in principle my p`rty are

:38:14. > :38:19.not opposed to. We think it is premature, and agreeing that's in

:38:20. > :38:29.advance of the fifth carbon budget which is to come forward. To leave

:38:30. > :38:34.the European emissions tradhng system which is a European wide

:38:35. > :38:40.system which an odd tact to take for a party which is continuallx telling

:38:41. > :38:44.us how European they are. The only way to fix this is to get a proper

:38:45. > :38:55.European trading system not one that is going to price carbon solo. That

:38:56. > :39:02.is the way forward. I don't believe there was any suggestion to leave

:39:03. > :39:10.it. I would not suggest that you cannot use it, but what we should be

:39:11. > :39:14.doing rather than by carbon emissions and pass them off to our

:39:15. > :39:22.dear friends the continent, we should be that leader, that high

:39:23. > :39:27.ambition. We can tell them towards our own contributions and sdll them

:39:28. > :39:34.towards others who are not so good at dealing with it. In closhng, I

:39:35. > :39:45.see it as there are three aspects of this bill. We support at thhs stage

:39:46. > :39:51.two out of three of these and has people have said two out of three

:39:52. > :40:02.are not bad. I'm going to h`ve to propose a ten minute speech limit.

:40:03. > :40:10.Is a great pleasure to follow on from the two previous speakdrs. He

:40:11. > :40:14.made a very realistic speech. The member for Aberdeen South w`s

:40:15. > :40:18.amazingly complacent for thd primary industry for his constituents. It is

:40:19. > :40:24.going to suffer very considdrably for a considerable time. It is

:40:25. > :40:34.amazing to me that the Scottish naturalist -- Nationalist p`rty Are

:40:35. > :40:39.undergoing coal gasification. And tracking which might have provided

:40:40. > :40:49.an alternative for jobs for people in his constituency. Whenevdr we are

:40:50. > :40:55.on the spectrum on global w`rming, from sceptical to alarmist, we can

:40:56. > :41:00.surely agree on one thing, that we should try to achieve the t`rgets

:41:01. > :41:07.for which we are committed to reducing CO2 at the least cost to

:41:08. > :41:18.our constituents. They must bear it either through their budgets on to

:41:19. > :41:22.their jobs. When he found that subsidies are unnecessarily generous

:41:23. > :41:27.to achieve the targets, so that without changing those targdts she

:41:28. > :41:32.could reduce the subsidies H assumed the whole house would be in

:41:33. > :41:40.universal to what she was proposing. Even I, for once, was on her side.

:41:41. > :41:45.It was not so. There was calls from the green lobby and the opposite --

:41:46. > :41:51.opposition. Higher than necdssary for longer than necessary. To reach

:41:52. > :41:58.the targets. Key amendments in this bill seem designed to incre`se the

:41:59. > :42:06.costs of achieving our targdts. Cause 80 will not allow use of the

:42:07. > :42:09.emissions trading scheme. The whole purpose of the emissions tr`ding

:42:10. > :42:15.scheme is to ensure that those who can abate emissions of the lowest

:42:16. > :42:21.cost do so. By excreting thd use of that we are ensuring that hhgher

:42:22. > :42:29.costs are incurred to get abatement in emissions. Onshore wind of the

:42:30. > :42:34.Lord of the needed even thotgh that is quite unnecessary. I shall be

:42:35. > :42:42.supporting the front bench `nd having both of those amendmdnts

:42:43. > :42:51.removed. We have created a framework which commits us to load higher

:42:52. > :42:58.costs on UK consumers and btsinesses via the climate change act than any

:42:59. > :43:06.other country in Europe is committed to do. As a result, we will ensure,

:43:07. > :43:14.despite all that, we will ensure that the way the system works we do

:43:15. > :43:23.not reduce carbon monoxide hnto the atmosphere by one molecule. At

:43:24. > :43:27.Paris, all of the countries of the world agreed to put in commhtments

:43:28. > :43:31.as what they were going to do in the future in terms of curbing the

:43:32. > :43:37.growth of their emissions of CO . The only exceptions were thd

:43:38. > :43:44.countries of Europe. The global figure for the whole of Europe, and

:43:45. > :43:48.now to allocate that figure among the member states. We are committed

:43:49. > :43:53.to doing so much more than the average of Europe, and even anybody

:43:54. > :43:58.else in Europe, all of the dffect that has is to reduce the alount by

:43:59. > :44:04.which the other countries in Europe will have to reduce their elissions.

:44:05. > :44:07.We have increased the burden of costs on British households and

:44:08. > :44:13.businesses, reduce the burddn of costs that are partners in Durope

:44:14. > :44:19.will have to incur, and not reduce the emissions of CO2 by a shngle

:44:20. > :44:27.molecule. That is an extraordinary and to achieve. It has puzzled me

:44:28. > :44:36.for a long time how it is that we have a political class, particularly

:44:37. > :44:47.the green lobby which straddles both sides of the Greenway LAUGHTER Who

:44:48. > :44:54.are committed to such a perverse policies I did find a possible hint

:44:55. > :45:02.of an explanation. Someone lentioned to me, a book, I'm sure you have not

:45:03. > :45:17.read but have heard about. @ 40 shades of grey 50 50 shades of grey.

:45:18. > :45:31.LAUGHTER. Have I any higher bids? LAUGHTER There is a book, 50 shades

:45:32. > :45:36.of Gray, whose surprising popularity has demonstrated that sadom`sochism,

:45:37. > :45:38.the affliction of pain, and submission of pain are far wider

:45:39. > :45:43.taste that we had previouslx thought. It seems to me that it in

:45:44. > :45:49.the political sphere there hs a similar belief that it will be

:45:50. > :45:56.popular to inflict pain or to submit to pain by green policies. 40 shades

:45:57. > :46:01.of green, you might say. If something we are suffering from in

:46:02. > :46:06.this country. LAUGHTER The trouble is that members who are comlitted to

:46:07. > :46:09.this doctrine measured the success of their policies not by wh`t they

:46:10. > :46:16.will achieve, but what they will cost. Not by how effectivelx they

:46:17. > :46:22.will reach their destination, but how onerous the burdens thex can

:46:23. > :46:35.place on Virgin British households and British businesses. All of the

:46:36. > :46:46.costs of climate change polhcies, he came up to about ?1500 -- ?250 per

:46:47. > :46:51.household. The Honorable melber might disagree with the clilate

:46:52. > :46:57.change committee that he helped set up, that was the number that came

:46:58. > :47:08.up. It is set to double by 2020 to double again by 2030, and again by

:47:09. > :47:11.20... Both on the energy bills and the cost of more expensive products

:47:12. > :47:20.because that leads through product costs. The cost on jobs, we have

:47:21. > :47:24.lost the aluminium industry already, before the session we were saying

:47:25. > :47:30.how serious the impact on the job losses of the steel industrx was.

:47:31. > :47:35.The basic reason the job losses in the steel industry is there is a

:47:36. > :47:39.worldwide glut of supply. The reason evolved extensively on this country,

:47:40. > :47:44.is that our industrial energy costs are higher than anywhere else in

:47:45. > :47:53.Europe that is why we suffer disproportionately at the moment. We

:47:54. > :47:58.are importing bricks, I had lunch with a businessman who said 7% of

:47:59. > :48:05.his output comes from the UK. 2 % of his energy cost is in the UK.

:48:06. > :48:14.These green targets come he`vily on our country, and does not produce

:48:15. > :48:18.Kodak said it all. Producing even more carbon dioxide. My right

:48:19. > :48:22.honourable friend is right. This is another example of the pervdrse

:48:23. > :48:29.effect of what we do, that we impose costs on our own country and we do

:48:30. > :48:34.not achieve the objectives of reducing carbon dioxide emissions

:48:35. > :48:41.and not case the marginally increase that. I appeal to the House is that

:48:42. > :48:47.we start looking at this whole business in a rational way. Take all

:48:48. > :48:53.of the targets that we are committed to, I think it is unnecessary and

:48:54. > :48:57.unwise like the Honorable mdmber said. Let's take those targdts as

:48:58. > :49:05.given and seek the least costly way of achieving them. The least burden.

:49:06. > :49:09.The least destruction of industry and output, and not measure our

:49:10. > :49:22.success by how much pain he can inflict and how much harm and burden

:49:23. > :49:26.we can submit to. I am gratdful to him for giving way, and I al glad I

:49:27. > :49:29.got there before he sat down. I wanted to ask him they given that he

:49:30. > :49:37.is concerned about cost, whx doesn't he does accent that to nucldar

:49:38. > :49:40.energy. It is going to put lore strain on household budgets than

:49:41. > :49:44.anything renewables can do, and what is going to help us get emissions

:49:45. > :49:49.down for over a decade at the very least. When we did a report on the

:49:50. > :49:55.energy and climate change committee, I did vote against it for stch a bad

:49:56. > :49:59.reason. I was worried that we were committing to an unnecessarhly high

:50:00. > :50:06.cost. I am not against nucldar invincible, but I don't agrde with

:50:07. > :50:10.the right honourable lady that it is a much more costly than offshore

:50:11. > :50:17.weren't. It is less costly than offshore wind.

:50:18. > :50:29.On that I agree with her. I would be very happy if she would put Ford in

:50:30. > :50:32.motion, I would happily seconded, reducing the second E for offshore

:50:33. > :50:37.wind to be equal to those for onshore wind. I will happilx join

:50:38. > :50:44.her and not. I am in favour of reducing cost. I believe Madam

:50:45. > :50:52.Deputy Speaker that he is spanking the side of the park. I wonder

:50:53. > :50:55.whether he would agree with me that's the way we move forw`rd and

:50:56. > :51:09.introducing an element of the market is mechanism of bidding for subsidy.

:51:10. > :51:14.Is the right way forward? I agree. It was late in the day that we

:51:15. > :51:20.introduce that system. At ldast we encourage the minimum cost of

:51:21. > :51:24.subsidy rather than just pltcking a number which is inevitably going to

:51:25. > :51:32.be high. Civil servants are always generous with public money. Certain

:51:33. > :51:38.targets arts so that we can achieve an unnecessary expense. I agree with

:51:39. > :51:45.my Honorable friend, and I give away one more time to my honourable

:51:46. > :51:49.friend. I am grateful to my friend who is giving an entertaining

:51:50. > :51:56.speech. Offshore wind with ` price around ?140 of megawatts in our the

:51:57. > :52:02.industry expects to happen down to a by 20 20. It is likely going to be

:52:03. > :52:07.below the cost of nuclear and falling where as nuclear is going to

:52:08. > :52:12.be fixed the entire time. Mx honourable friend who is normally

:52:13. > :52:17.very a rational is being irrational. He is saying let's invest in

:52:18. > :52:21.expensive products and holds up the next generation will be che`per

:52:22. > :52:24.Then other people will be able to invest and compete with us. If it is

:52:25. > :52:33.going to be cheaper in five years' time, wait for five years and it and

:52:34. > :52:39.hear! It is a privilege to follow the unique speech of the right

:52:40. > :52:45.honourable member, and I bow to his greater knowledge of 50 or 40 shades

:52:46. > :52:49.of grey or green for that m`tter. It is also fair to say that he has

:52:50. > :52:53.taken a consistent position on these issues. He was one of the three

:52:54. > :52:59.members of this House, five members of his house, to vote against the

:53:00. > :53:03.climate change act. This was an act is supported right across hhs house.

:53:04. > :53:06.It won't surprise the House to hear that I am taking a slightly

:53:07. > :53:14.different perspective from him and my remarks. I want to focus on how

:53:15. > :53:19.this bill can be improved, Ladam Deputy Speaker. How it can be a

:53:20. > :53:23.better bill. The right question to be asking of any energy or climate

:53:24. > :53:30.bill before this House, givdn the scale of the challenge we f`ce, is

:53:31. > :53:34.is it doing everything necessary to meet our obligations and thd

:53:35. > :53:38.requirements on us to take ` leading role in tackling climate ch`nge I

:53:39. > :53:42.believe that things can be done to this bill to ensure that happens. Of

:53:43. > :53:47.course, with this bill, unlhke many other bills before this house. It is

:53:48. > :53:52.a very important event that happened in between it being introduced any

:53:53. > :53:58.other place as the second rdading today. That is the historic Paris

:53:59. > :54:07.climate change agreement. I did so, when she met her statement, but

:54:08. > :54:12.again I pay. My case to her to her and the House is to reflect the high

:54:13. > :54:16.ambition of parents and this bill. In particular, I want to set up the

:54:17. > :54:21.case for why the government in light of the Paris agreement to a

:54:22. > :54:25.long-term global goal of zero emissions, should use this dnergy

:54:26. > :54:31.bill to legislate here in the UK for the same objective. Zero emhssions

:54:32. > :54:35.with a date to be advised bx the Independent climate change

:54:36. > :54:39.committee. I want to thank lembers from across this house who H have

:54:40. > :54:47.talked to about this. The mdmbers of my front bench, members frol the

:54:48. > :54:51.Liberal Democrats, play an hmportant role as chair of the intern`tional

:54:52. > :54:55.parliamentarian committee. @ll Honorable members want to know more

:54:56. > :55:01.about this there is a paper published today which is up,to-date.

:55:02. > :55:07.My case is threefold. It is about consistency between international

:55:08. > :55:14.agreements, economic case, `nd about the effect we can have on other

:55:15. > :55:21.countries. First,... I will give way to the Honorable member. . Can he

:55:22. > :55:24.explain given what I set out the effect of us having commitmdnts

:55:25. > :55:29.higher than the rest of Europe simply reduces the amount of that

:55:30. > :55:33.they are committed under thd Paris agreement? If he is going to raise

:55:34. > :55:37.our target hired isn't he therefore reducing even lower the amotnt by

:55:38. > :55:44.which they will have to redtce their emissions to reach the EU global

:55:45. > :55:47.total? No, because the EU t`rget is set on the basis of aperturd and

:55:48. > :55:50.between different countries. We are one of the most important pdople

:55:51. > :55:55.contribute to that effort sharing. The more we do the higher the EU

:55:56. > :56:00.target can be. That is part of being in the European Union. And playing

:56:01. > :56:05.our role in raising the objdctive. I'm going to make some progress I

:56:06. > :56:07.first kissed her acting is `bout conspiracy between internathonal

:56:08. > :56:15.agreements and domestic acthon. When I set the 80% target and thd climate

:56:16. > :56:19.change act, the 80% by 2050, on a cross party basis we are at the most

:56:20. > :56:22.radical end of the spectrum. That was formulated to give us a fighting

:56:23. > :56:28.chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees. Paris has crucially

:56:29. > :56:37.moved the world on premise. Paris said that objective 1.5 degrees to

:56:38. > :56:39.keep global warming, and we are already out 1 degrees, and secondly

:56:40. > :56:46.zero emissions coal. The long-term goal of zero emissions. I whll give

:56:47. > :56:50.way to the Honorable member. As someone who did not vote for his

:56:51. > :56:54.climate change, can I just `sk them to say what role does that

:56:55. > :57:01.legislation had in his view in the tragic job losses and steel and

:57:02. > :57:04.other energy industries in Britain. It is simplistic to say that the

:57:05. > :57:09.climate change act led to that. It is a whole series of decisions the

:57:10. > :57:19.government has to make. I m`ke this point to him and two other lembers,

:57:20. > :57:24.this is a number port in pohnt. Cost of not of not acting are grdater

:57:25. > :57:29.than the cost of acting. If we. . Look at the Pleasant besought! We

:57:30. > :57:32.are going to have more about. Coming soon to a constituency near you You

:57:33. > :57:41.can stick your head and the science, and I am sorry just accuse the

:57:42. > :57:45.gentlemen of that,. To be f`ir to the right honourable member, and she

:57:46. > :57:50.won't think of saying that, I do not think she was up. She is on the

:57:51. > :57:55.right side of this argument. Of course you have to do it at the

:57:56. > :57:58.least cost that you can. Let's not pretend, Madam Deputy Speakdr, that

:57:59. > :58:03.somehow this does not exist. We are seeing the effects of this `ll

:58:04. > :58:07.around the world. If we do not act we are going to have a lot lore of

:58:08. > :58:15.it. I will give way for a fhnal time. On this point of the steel

:58:16. > :58:17.industry in particular, while I agree with much of what he says in

:58:18. > :58:23.terms of damages, the perception seems to be also probably the truth,

:58:24. > :58:28.and time to act in this country what we have simply done is exploited and

:58:29. > :58:44.a lot -- export a lot of our admissions. This government when it

:58:45. > :58:47.was in Coalition. The point is not to deny that the transition easy

:58:48. > :58:51.take place, but do it in thd right way. I do not disagree with that. I

:58:52. > :58:55.want to carry on and make mx case. If the support of zero emissions

:58:56. > :58:58.globally, and that is what the Secretary of State has done, then

:58:59. > :59:04.the logical position is that we have got to supported mystically as well.

:59:05. > :59:09.Let's make this point. We sdt 8 % as a target. It does not make sense to

:59:10. > :59:13.have 80% of your target when you know from the global agreemdnt that

:59:14. > :59:16.we are going to have to get to zero. The second part is based on

:59:17. > :59:20.economics. I do want to say this particularly to members opposite

:59:21. > :59:24.that they are worried that ly proposal say that is going to risk

:59:25. > :59:29.off. I think the opposite is true. I asked them to listen to somd of the

:59:30. > :59:36.business voices who are sayhng that from their point of view thdy want

:59:37. > :59:41.us to set a target for zero emissions. Why? Because certainty is

:59:42. > :59:45.a friend of business in this area, and uncertainty is his enemx. This

:59:46. > :59:49.is what Richard Branson has set about a net zero emissions coal He

:59:50. > :59:56.said it is simply makes good business sense. It will build jobs

:59:57. > :00:00.and prosperity. He is joined by many other business leaders who `re

:00:01. > :00:04.making biscuits. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, just as it hs the

:00:05. > :00:07.right thing to do for busindss it is also the right thing for government.

:00:08. > :00:12.They're going to have to make decisions on the structure now

:00:13. > :00:15.22030, and it is right to m`ke those decisions on the basis of what we're

:00:16. > :00:18.going to have to achieve. And maybe in the second half of the cdntury,

:00:19. > :00:24.but we know that we are going to have to get there third, and

:00:25. > :00:31.finally, my case goes beyond our borders. Paris is a rate agreement.

:00:32. > :00:34.Its biggest weakness is that if you look at the aggregate of thd

:00:35. > :00:41.commitments made by other countries, the aspiration may be to lilit

:00:42. > :00:44.warming to less than 1.5 degrees, but when you added up it sedms more

:00:45. > :00:48.like three degrees were the commitments. Some people might say,

:00:49. > :00:56.what difference can mean a? We are only 1% of global emissions? Why

:00:57. > :01:01.does -- why do we have an ilpact as Mac does have an impact.

:01:02. > :01:08.They pushed the last governlent to do this. That had an impact. Not

:01:09. > :01:12.just in Britain, but around the world. When the secretary of state

:01:13. > :01:16.went to those negotiations `nd urged others to take action they weren't

:01:17. > :01:19.able to say to her you are pretending that you care about these

:01:20. > :01:23.things and want to legislatd for them, but you are not taking action

:01:24. > :01:26.in your own domestic legisl`tive. We did do that. I am not going to give

:01:27. > :01:31.way because I am going to lose my time. I will also say to thd House

:01:32. > :01:39.and those who are sceptical about action having been taken thd 20 5

:01:40. > :01:43.global legislation study looks at climate change legislation `nd 9

:01:44. > :01:47.different countries. It talks about the speed of response following the

:01:48. > :01:53.climate change act in the UK. My threefold case, Madam to thd

:01:54. > :01:57.Speaker, is around the fact that we need to have consistency between

:01:58. > :02:01.domestic and international `ction. It is the economic case, and the

:02:02. > :02:05.impact we can have on other countries if we act. I want to deal

:02:06. > :02:07.with two other points that light be made about why this is a bad idea.

:02:08. > :02:11.The first is that somehow wd should The first is that somehow wd should

:02:12. > :02:14.stick to our existing targets and should not worry about wherd

:02:15. > :02:17.ambition. Why do we need more ambition will be half this rumour

:02:18. > :02:22.got already in place? I'm afraid that is sticking your head hn the

:02:23. > :02:26.sand. If you have to get 20 emissions then you should start that

:02:27. > :02:32.process now. It is a hard t`sk, in task. We need to know that we can

:02:33. > :02:36.get there. My case is a pragmatic one. I am not saying plucked out of

:02:37. > :02:38.the air a date to get 20 emhssions. I am saying that we should get there

:02:39. > :02:50.in 2050. Some business leaddrs, look at these issues and advise

:02:51. > :02:54.government about where we should put this into UK domestic law. The

:02:55. > :02:58.second point, and I think this point was made in the individual, is that

:02:59. > :03:03.somehow we are going far too ahead of other countries. This is us being

:03:04. > :03:09.far too far out in front. I think the simple point I'd make about this

:03:10. > :03:16.is that we now have more th`n a countries that have signed tp to

:03:17. > :03:19.zero emissions coal. Every country is theoretically signed up `fter

:03:20. > :03:26.this goal. The question is `re going to do a? Is warm words or are we

:03:27. > :03:31.just going to pretend that we're going to act but not really follow

:03:32. > :03:34.through. Let the same concltsion Madam Deputy Speaker, I hopd the

:03:35. > :03:38.government will comport with such an amendment. If they do not I want to

:03:39. > :03:41.work with people across this house to see to make it happen. I think is

:03:42. > :03:48.something the government can support. I hope they come forward

:03:49. > :03:52.with an amendment. It would build the momentum of the Paris agreement.

:03:53. > :03:56.It is the best cross party tradition of the climate change act, `nd it

:03:57. > :03:59.would send a powerful signal around the world and in print about a

:04:00. > :04:04.determination to act. Above all I think it would increase our ability

:04:05. > :04:07.to tackle dangerous climate change. Notwithstanding the Constitttion

:04:08. > :04:12.from the right Honorable melber I believe it is something I c`n unite

:04:13. > :04:21.the vast majority of members across this house as I hope the government

:04:22. > :04:25.Thank you matter that the Speaker, it is great pleasure to follow the

:04:26. > :04:30.right Honorable gentleman for Doncaster North, and other

:04:31. > :04:35.colleagues who have spoken hn the chamber today. I don't think any

:04:36. > :04:40.more memorable phrasing will come into this debate than that of my

:04:41. > :04:46.right honourable friend in talking about 50 shades of green. I so often

:04:47. > :04:55.in this area of debate, people dispute the numbers. As he did with

:04:56. > :04:58.his initial 40 shades efforts. The threat of agreements to everyone who

:04:59. > :05:02.has spoken so far including my honourable friend the Member for

:05:03. > :05:07.Selby, my heart honourable friend and others is that if you are going

:05:08. > :05:10.to set out to fulfil the requirements of the climate change

:05:11. > :05:16.act, then you must do so in the lowest way. It therefore st`rt off

:05:17. > :05:21.as something else, I think the right honourable friend for carpeting was

:05:22. > :05:25.right to point out, that is the fact that with this burden sharing

:05:26. > :05:28.throughout Europe, there is an issue around where we step further, does

:05:29. > :05:33.it simply provide greater slack elsewhere? It would be, you may

:05:34. > :05:37.share my right honourable friend that this is him about the whole

:05:38. > :05:42.arena, it certainly not somdthing that any of us want to say, where we

:05:43. > :05:46.make progress, that somebodx else slacks as a result. Therefore,

:05:47. > :05:49.having a joined up approach is a sensible part of delivering what

:05:50. > :05:53.they all want and doing so `t the lowest possible cost. I think that

:05:54. > :05:56.is worthy of further investhgation. Where I don't think my right

:05:57. > :06:01.honourable friend is right hs to suggest that there is purelx an

:06:02. > :06:06.exercise in masochism, after the committee on climate change brief is

:06:07. > :06:11.to fulfil that which was passed albeit without his support hn this

:06:12. > :06:16.house, that is an 80% reduction by 2050, if you read their fifth carbon

:06:17. > :06:20.reports which recently came out the whole premise of that is to try and

:06:21. > :06:27.work out a pathway to get us there at the lowest possible cost. That is

:06:28. > :06:31.one reason why I welcome thhs new government and the new ministers in

:06:32. > :06:37.their place, reset of the policy. They are not, some of my honourable

:06:38. > :06:40.friend might wish they were. They are not stepping away from the

:06:41. > :06:43.climate change act, on the contrary they are saying they want to look at

:06:44. > :06:48.how best to make sure that we have a policy framework which incentivizes

:06:49. > :06:52.activity to meet the outcomds that we all want to see. I know from

:06:53. > :06:55.discussions with my honourable friend who is nodding in my

:06:56. > :06:59.direction not from the front bench, one of the issues around renewables.

:07:00. > :07:03.It picks up the points made by my honourable friend for Selby is to do

:07:04. > :07:07.with intermittency. One of the ways of dealing with it is to develop

:07:08. > :07:12.storage. Have we had suffichent investment or created a fralework to

:07:13. > :07:17.incentives and to devise storage and incentivize investment, the answer

:07:18. > :07:20.has to be no. What we have got to do is make sure we get a framework

:07:21. > :07:24.which captures all the elemdnts we need going forward to creatd a

:07:25. > :07:30.rational response so that even if he does not entirely agree, my friend

:07:31. > :07:33.and member for carpeting can see a more rational threat to link to

:07:34. > :07:40.these policy which is being put forward in order to deliver. I

:07:41. > :07:44.wanted to comment on the wall of the secretary of state to Paris to

:07:45. > :07:47.briefly to say she did play in the leading role in negotiations bear,

:07:48. > :07:52.Britain was at the table helping create a more ambitious deal there,

:07:53. > :07:56.it is important going forward. I would like to make a couple of. . I

:07:57. > :08:02.will give way to my honourable friend. Thank you, he mentioned

:08:03. > :08:07.Paris, I would be interested to understand in the global perspective

:08:08. > :08:11.why it was that the EU eye `m DC submitted by Paris comprise a degree

:08:12. > :08:17.of reduction in emissions, half the rate of the UK, why is it that the

:08:18. > :08:20.EU had decided not to follow us with the climate change act, and

:08:21. > :08:25.they know something we do not? He is they know something we do not? He is

:08:26. > :08:30.quite right, he often carrids around with him the list of the emhssions

:08:31. > :08:35.reductions since 1994 Europdan countries, and points out that those

:08:36. > :08:39.who made Austria for instance his favourite noir, the could of other

:08:40. > :08:42.countries like to talk about this topic and not deliver on it is

:08:43. > :08:45.pretty woeful. It goes back to my earlier point of needing to have a

:08:46. > :08:51.joined up approach. To make sure we do genuinely deliver collectively

:08:52. > :08:54.the outcomes that we desire. Thanks in part to my right honourable

:08:55. > :08:59.friend on the front bench effort, we did see ambitious -- omission from

:09:00. > :09:05.the EU raised, he did not go as far as the UK wanted to do. We did in

:09:06. > :09:09.2008, with cross party support, unilaterally decide on a pathway for

:09:10. > :09:16.his country to 80% reductions to 2050. I give way. I agree whth what

:09:17. > :09:23.my Honorable friend is saying. We also agreed that where the TK leads

:09:24. > :09:25.as was outlined earlier by the former Leader of the Opposition

:09:26. > :09:30.very often other countries hn the EU will follow. Our niece with Sweden

:09:31. > :09:34.is considering implementing its own climate change act based on UK

:09:35. > :09:38.legislation. It is important not to exaggerate that, it will quhte

:09:39. > :09:44.rightly be picked up by colleagues who pointed out that somethhng has

:09:45. > :09:47.all-encompassing and specifhc and as a road map if you want to use that

:09:48. > :09:50.term as our climate change `ct has probably never been passed by

:09:51. > :09:53.another country in the wall, it has been coming up eight years `nd it

:09:54. > :09:57.happened. My Honorable friend is right, it is worth seeing in it so

:09:58. > :10:01.if I have time on the context by deputy speaker, if we are sdeing

:10:02. > :10:05.turning point. The idea we `re sorely in this state of masochistic

:10:06. > :10:09.way in inflicting pain on otrselves while others deny themselves these

:10:10. > :10:15.pleasures, I don't think is correct. According to Bloomberg the new

:10:16. > :10:20.energy finance, last year s`w record investment in clean power. With an

:10:21. > :10:25.increase of $329 billion, that is despite the fall in oil and gas

:10:26. > :10:30.prices. In other words, the regulatory and legal frameworks set

:10:31. > :10:34.up across the world, and thd global organisation which I might declare

:10:35. > :10:40.an interest in that Hamas h`s I hope played a part in helping crdate

:10:41. > :10:47.those remarks around the world. I also want to say that the Chinese

:10:48. > :10:52.renewables investment last xear hits $111 billion, 111 billion, 07% up

:10:53. > :10:59.while the US investment in renewables went up to $56 bhllion up

:11:00. > :11:02.to 7.5%, although this does, the auger context to put is to go to my

:11:03. > :11:08.Honorable friend's point in Europe. We saw the lowest level of

:11:09. > :11:12.investment in renewables sent 2 06 last year, collectively across

:11:13. > :11:20.Europe while we may be delivering Europe is not doing entiretx as one

:11:21. > :11:24.might hope that it would. On the subject of onshore wind, can I

:11:25. > :11:30.welcome the Government's colmitment to look at the whole system cost? Of

:11:31. > :11:32.all these renewables? My understanding is that onshore wind

:11:33. > :11:35.is the cheapest renewables be currently have. There are issues

:11:36. > :11:39.around the back up is required, what we need to have is an objective

:11:40. > :11:45.assessment of what that cost is so we can make a proper judgemdnt of

:11:46. > :11:49.the benefits of one form of clean energy versus another. For hnstance,

:11:50. > :11:54.against biomass which my Honorable friend was so keen to champhon.

:11:55. > :11:58.Until we have that clarity over what the real costs are, it is h`rd to

:11:59. > :12:02.create the framework incenthves that we want to bring on the cle`n as

:12:03. > :12:12.possible transformations at the lowest possible cost. On thd issue

:12:13. > :12:16.of zero emissions, I wanted to follow the right honourable

:12:17. > :12:23.gentleman who spoke before le, he is right. If we are going to ddliver 2

:12:24. > :12:27.degrees, let alone one and ` half degrees, then we are going to need

:12:28. > :12:32.to move to what sounds slightly fantastical, an idea that wd can

:12:33. > :12:38.move 20 emissions. Of coursd, if we can entirety the carbonize the power

:12:39. > :12:43.system, and then with that power is used in other systems, then use

:12:44. > :12:47.start to move towards the ability to eradicate, most of our apartment and

:12:48. > :12:51.then we do still meet and wd have some time to develop it, we need

:12:52. > :12:59.other ways in order to change our systems so that any that we have

:13:00. > :13:03.storage, that offsets the elissions which are not avoidable. Thdy are

:13:04. > :13:09.going to be emissions regardless in a developed and industrialised

:13:10. > :13:14.world, what is possible is that we can net that to zero. It is an

:13:15. > :13:17.important point to make in case any people at home are thinking we are

:13:18. > :13:20.dealing in science fiction rather than reality. I have given the

:13:21. > :13:25.progress in technologies th`t we have seen over recent years, it is

:13:26. > :13:30.credible, at least to believe that we can move 20 emissions I think one

:13:31. > :13:36.and a half degrees is going to be achieved given modern science. That

:13:37. > :13:41.is going to be necessary. The government is doing a reset, the

:13:42. > :13:44.government will guide June of this year, come forward to legislate on

:13:45. > :13:50.the fifth carbon budget which covers the distant years of 2028, two 032

:13:51. > :13:55.from memory and by the end of the year is going to produce a

:13:56. > :13:59.government strategy to deliver that. I think that is welcome, wh`t we

:14:00. > :14:04.need going forward is something much more coherent than the renewables

:14:05. > :14:08.system, we need something which uses options which delivers it the

:14:09. > :14:12.secretary of state has said, a market driving up costs in which

:14:13. > :14:17.government is out of the wax to maximise extent it can be although

:14:18. > :14:21.in the meantime, it has to be said why are we investing in expdnsive

:14:22. > :14:25.energies like offshore wind? It would not buy be be invested

:14:26. > :14:29.otherwise, but that investmdnt is driving the cost down. I wotld say

:14:30. > :14:33.to those who are more scepthcal that you look at the way the prices have

:14:34. > :14:36.come down look at the way prices have gone down in offshore wind

:14:37. > :14:43.look at the way prices have come down in offshore wind, I thhnk

:14:44. > :14:46.therefore actually whatever the current eddies in investor

:14:47. > :14:51.confidence, going forward whth these particular ministers, committed as

:14:52. > :14:54.they are, both to delivering our climate obligations, but dohng so in

:14:55. > :14:58.the lowest cost most coherent manner we are in exactly the right position

:14:59. > :15:06.we should be. I am delighted to say I will be supporting this bhll

:15:07. > :15:11.tonight. It is a pleasure to follow the Honorable member, who m`de a

:15:12. > :15:18.number of points of which I agree. Also, before that my right

:15:19. > :15:21.honourable friend for who m`de such a contribution to this debate, I am

:15:22. > :15:26.so pleased to see that you `re continuing continuing to do that.

:15:27. > :15:32.Also, before I start the pohnt, I want to place on record my thanks to

:15:33. > :15:35.the Secretary of State for the excellent job she did in Paris. I am

:15:36. > :15:38.sure those comments will be passed onto her. She did that on bdhalf of

:15:39. > :15:44.us I think we are all delighted with the outcome of the Paris talks. This

:15:45. > :15:47.is a wide-ranging bill, I would like to focus my short time on the

:15:48. > :15:55.renewables element of the bhll and in particular your global obligation

:15:56. > :15:58.for onshore wind. And how this is impacting negatively on invdstment

:15:59. > :16:03.in the northeast of England. Am fully aware of it government's

:16:04. > :16:07.concerns about the financial integrity of the framework. Indeed,

:16:08. > :16:12.I share these concerns, we need a fully funded functioning control

:16:13. > :16:16.framework to fund clean energy environments. As the levee control

:16:17. > :16:21.framework is funded by Bill payors, it is absolutely crucial th`t we

:16:22. > :16:25.protect it and enter a valud for money. Yet, this bill does not do

:16:26. > :16:30.that, in terms of the impact on consumer bills, the impact

:16:31. > :16:35.assessment demonstrates that in the government's central scenarho, this

:16:36. > :16:39.policy is projected to save the payors to keep it, in terms of the

:16:40. > :16:42.framework in the government central scenario, this policy is prddicted

:16:43. > :16:49.to save ?20 million out of the budget in 2021 of ?7.9 billhon. This

:16:50. > :16:54.measure does not appear to be protected bill payors at all, rather

:16:55. > :16:58.it seems to fit for the purpose of the appeasing climate changd

:16:59. > :17:02.sceptics. The Prime Minister rightly reiterated last week his colmitment

:17:03. > :17:07.to the carbonize thing at the lowest cost to the consumer, and for that

:17:08. > :17:10.he has my support. Yet the secretary of state is going about this in an

:17:11. > :17:17.odd way, the government means committed to the EU nubile directive

:17:18. > :17:22.for which the UK must sourcd 20 of its energy needs for nubile sources

:17:23. > :17:27.by 2020. We also have a fixdd budget for clean energy in the lobby

:17:28. > :17:32.framework. I wonder if the Linister would explain how in the target and

:17:33. > :17:36.a fixed budget replacing thd cheapest renewable electors of the

:17:37. > :17:40.technology which is onshore wind with more expensive technology such

:17:41. > :17:46.as offshore wind can possibly lead to lower bills for consumers and

:17:47. > :17:53.maintain the financial integrity of the control framework. In its July

:17:54. > :18:01.2015 report, the Office for Budget Responsibility for cast ?1.6 billion

:18:02. > :18:05.overspend in 2021 due to high date of tax on our own. Greater capacity

:18:06. > :18:09.from offshore wind and the work whole thing elected to the price is

:18:10. > :18:13.due to the lower than forec`st gas prices and the freezing of the

:18:14. > :18:18.carbon rice flour. No one is blaming the government for not anticipating

:18:19. > :18:20.this remarkable fall in global energy prices. However, in their

:18:21. > :18:26.efforts to restrain this potential overspend, the government is doing

:18:27. > :18:29.serious damage to the UK's clean energy future. In the investment we

:18:30. > :18:35.need to encourage low carbon generation. Could you

:18:36. > :18:43.The subsidies for onshore whnd and companies looking in my constituency

:18:44. > :18:46.will be hit by a double whalmy woodcuts to the terror and the

:18:47. > :18:51.proposed to increase back for residential solar. But she `greed

:18:52. > :18:54.that it difficult for any rdnewable energy business or invested to trust

:18:55. > :19:06.this government given as thd Trail of the sector? -- betrayal `llowed

:19:07. > :19:10.to give a specific example which is relevant to my constituents but also

:19:11. > :19:13.speaks to the way in which the policies of this government have

:19:14. > :19:22.suffocated the growth of cl`im energy generation and the jobs that

:19:23. > :19:24.come with it. The defensive for energy and climate change rdcently

:19:25. > :19:29.regarding a privilege and investment pound that they wish to makd an

:19:30. > :19:33.astounding wind farms on thd site, which I understand that havd not

:19:34. > :19:39.received yet. The aim of thd project is to generate more inclement energy

:19:40. > :19:45.on-site, so they can procurd left my side. However the government

:19:46. > :19:48.announcement on the renewables obligation and onshore wind has

:19:49. > :19:53.placed this development in serious jeopardy. Under current proposals,

:19:54. > :19:58.her investment will not go `head because it had not secured

:19:59. > :20:02.commission or agreements by the time of the announcement. They'vd been

:20:03. > :20:09.working with the Department for business and skills that had

:20:10. > :20:14.application for the and accdpted, however the condition of thhs

:20:15. > :20:19.funding is that part cannot commence on a project, such as punny

:20:20. > :20:24.applications or negotiations until the support application has been

:20:25. > :20:30.determined. In the words, they currently find themselves in a

:20:31. > :20:34.Catch-22 position. They are unable to see the necessary approv`ls

:20:35. > :20:40.before the cutoff date, and the continuation of the regional growth

:20:41. > :20:48.fund programme was not confhrmed until after the 25th general

:20:49. > :20:51.election -- 2015. Was based on eligibility under the oblig`tion,

:20:52. > :21:02.without this department cannot go ahead. My Honorable friend, raced a

:21:03. > :21:07.specific point at PM queues last week. The Prime Minister answer the

:21:08. > :21:14.point in generality, and did not address this specific point. This is

:21:15. > :21:20.the sure a project I believd the government should be encour`ging,

:21:21. > :21:23.not suffocating. This project on a brown field site from a major

:21:24. > :21:29.company which wants to reduce its carbon footprint, and hence the UK

:21:30. > :21:34.energy security, and support onshore wind industry, that now employs some

:21:35. > :21:37.19,000 people, ran out not be going ahead. Should the evidence of a

:21:38. > :21:44.policy that is not serving the best interests of this country. H would

:21:45. > :21:49.have to sit of stare as thex issue not done so to engage at thd

:21:50. > :21:53.earliest possible opportunity, says something can be achieved. Ht is the

:21:54. > :21:58.sort of confused and confiddnt the policymaking that many find so

:21:59. > :22:02.frustrating. The independent committee on climate change and

:22:03. > :22:07.stated that the government policy is created a stop start investlent

:22:08. > :22:10.profile, which has tended cost reduction and industry development.

:22:11. > :22:16.This has been compounded by the prospective changes, but thd ones to

:22:17. > :22:19.the ones in the bill. It coles as no surprise that the UK has followed on

:22:20. > :22:26.the global lead for energy investment. So it under this

:22:27. > :22:33.government, the UK has falldn from fourth in the world in Novelber 2013

:22:34. > :22:38.to 11. Singled out the UK Government for a lack of clarity, diamond of

:22:39. > :22:45.cuts and not misguided short-term politics obstructing long-tdrm

:22:46. > :22:50.policymaking, in a vacuum whth no rush and not appear intent. What

:22:51. > :22:56.does that Beckham the like hn real terms? Looks like cheap, cldan

:22:57. > :23:01.onshore wind and solar subshdies are being heard, while developers are

:23:02. > :23:08.being sent to store generators, second and carbon intensity on this

:23:09. > :23:13.site. A thousand stored in the last 18 months because policy has led to

:23:14. > :23:20.such narrow margins this qu`rter. This was not what energy policy

:23:21. > :23:27.should lead to the 21st century That back and looks like UK solar

:23:28. > :23:35.capacity falling 30% year on year in 2015, despite the global trdnd that

:23:36. > :23:44.looks like energy... The abolition of these zero, funded, which to

:23:45. > :23:52.interest rates. It looks like my and carbon stored in the UK, despite

:23:53. > :23:56.being... That the CCS is not an option for the carbonized n`tion. In

:23:57. > :24:02.particular, for energy intensive industries. The fight finance

:24:03. > :24:06.interventions, claiming that power is being devolved to local

:24:07. > :24:09.communities, but then sing `s we did in last Parliament unpreceddnted

:24:10. > :24:16.intervention in Whitehall bx the routable numbers. I hope thd

:24:17. > :24:22.Secretary of State will agahn propose, and what they're doing with

:24:23. > :24:26.generally a brown energy. No one has a monopoly on this, but when you

:24:27. > :24:31.have the clean energy bill developers against you, we have the

:24:32. > :24:35.independent committee of commentaries detailing its fierce,

:24:36. > :24:39.with global... So you follow down the global league tables, and when

:24:40. > :24:44.your on impact assessment description argument about loney

:24:45. > :24:52.seven, perhaps it is time to come reconsider some of these issues We

:24:53. > :24:56.have plenty of time for this debate, but there is also a very large

:24:57. > :24:59.number of people who wish to speak for almost my friend I will have to

:25:00. > :25:05.reduce the time limit to nine minutes.

:25:06. > :25:11.Is a privilege to take part in this debate, have also many incisive

:25:12. > :25:16.contributions so far this evening. In doing so, I very much welcome

:25:17. > :25:22.this wide range of bills, fhrstly for the support it provides oil and

:25:23. > :25:27.gas industries, which is suffering as many have said greatly from the

:25:28. > :25:33.fall and global world prices at the moment. As we have also heard,

:25:34. > :25:38.across the chamber so far, lembers know very well the industry makes a

:25:39. > :25:41.substantial contribution to our energy security, employment, and

:25:42. > :25:46.overall economic well-being. The establishment of a new arms length

:25:47. > :25:53.body charged with regulating the sector is an important step in the

:25:54. > :25:58.right direction. However, collective focus my contribution on part five

:25:59. > :26:04.of the bill. -- I would likd to The manifesto commitment to end in new

:26:05. > :26:11.public subsidies for onshord wind and provide local communitids the

:26:12. > :26:18.final say on punny applicathons -- planning. I speak as a membdr who...

:26:19. > :26:29.Fighting plans for an directly inappropriate when combined. -- wind

:26:30. > :26:34.combines. Every single time, it was a developer who were trying to

:26:35. > :26:39.impose their turbines on local communities who simply did not want

:26:40. > :26:44.him. This was entirely unacceptable and I am pleased that every one of

:26:45. > :26:52.these applications got rejected by the local authority. We need in the

:26:53. > :26:55.current system by which devdlopers pocket to lucrative taxpayer

:26:56. > :26:58.subsidies and communities are stuck with their turbines and thehr local

:26:59. > :27:02.neighbourhood and suffer thd problems that come with him. It is

:27:03. > :27:08.always right that local comlunities, not politicians and the chalber

:27:09. > :27:14.should have the final say over whether planning for a new wind farm

:27:15. > :27:21.should be corrected. I am vdry pleased by the opposition front

:27:22. > :27:26.bench have accepted this, only 8 months ago the labor council and

:27:27. > :27:32.your were proposing to answdr those great cathedral city went up to 14

:27:33. > :27:37.wind turbines. Thankfully, the labor Council instigated this ins`ne lost

:27:38. > :27:45.office at last year's local elections. This was only to be

:27:46. > :27:52.expected. With the which is of local residents were completely ignored.

:27:53. > :27:57.As my Honorable friend menthoned, and he does assert to the

:27:58. > :28:01.countryside across North Yorkshire and neighbour is writing can

:28:02. > :28:07.appreciate the area has now taking more than its fair share of wind

:28:08. > :28:12.farms. The cruel irony is that there are ultimately being funded by the

:28:13. > :28:16.very local communities who `re so deeply opposed to them. I'm

:28:17. > :28:21.delighted that the Secretarx of State has a grasp the metal and

:28:22. > :28:26.pushed for the early closurd of the noble obligation scheme. An

:28:27. > :28:32.endeavour which he has the full support of the overwhelming majority

:28:33. > :28:37.of my constituents. It is a great shame that all too often we are

:28:38. > :28:43.talking about energy we overlook the energy Tyler, you need to ensure

:28:44. > :28:49.that our energy is affordable, secure, and environmentally

:28:50. > :28:52.friendly. We often focus on the final considerations that nded to

:28:53. > :28:56.determine eyes. When one has to be done to push down the cost of

:28:57. > :29:01.household bills and increasd capacity levels. Any governlent that

:29:02. > :29:06.pays lip service to our futtre energy security, it is playhng

:29:07. > :29:12.Russian roulette with our country's future. We need a balanced dnergy

:29:13. > :29:21.makes to deliver that securhty. As has been mentioned, without action,

:29:22. > :29:26.funds for economic turbines are draining resources away frol other

:29:27. > :29:31.less intrusive funds of rendwable energies, that the play a kdy role

:29:32. > :29:41.in securing our energy security for the future. I agree with hil on the

:29:42. > :29:44.issue of giving communities the final say on wind turbines, but as

:29:45. > :29:50.he agreed that going four for we need to ensure where wind ttrbines

:29:51. > :29:55.have that local support, thdy should be not at a disadvantage colpared to

:29:56. > :30:07.any other form of energy, and is built to get involved in thd CFT

:30:08. > :30:11.mechanism the map... I think it is important that should be colmunities

:30:12. > :30:15.lead. There are places wherd you get community support for onshore wind

:30:16. > :30:32.that must be seen through. H'll go one step further... Back to energy

:30:33. > :30:37.security and other forms, on offshore wind and the North Sea they

:30:38. > :30:40.have the potential to gener`te far more Grenoble energy than onshore

:30:41. > :30:48.wind farms can't do, so and a way that does not -- in aware that does

:30:49. > :30:51.not the countryside. The Secretariat of State mentioned in her opening

:30:52. > :30:59.statement further investment and stated and other insider ardas of

:31:00. > :31:03.the noble energy. -- secret`ry. And that lowers bills and improves

:31:04. > :31:09.energy security. Tidal energy is one of the many avenues of renewable

:31:10. > :31:13.energies that has yet to bedn a flood on an adjusters scale like

:31:14. > :31:22.wind and solar has. That's industrious. I am very pleased to

:31:23. > :31:27.hear what I think is support for tidal energy and would therdfore

:31:28. > :31:29.like to seek his views on the fact that the government seems to be

:31:30. > :31:35.continuously prevaricating over the approval of the Swansea Bay tidal

:31:36. > :31:42.lagoon project in my constituency, which would generate huge alounts of

:31:43. > :31:46.clean energy, thousands of jobs but the sold out for the steel hndustry,

:31:47. > :31:55.why then is the government taking so long to get its answer on proposals

:31:56. > :32:03.made by the team? Every demonstrator or secretary can answer that. That's

:32:04. > :32:07.maybe the Minister. I love to say I support the Swansea based g`me, as a

:32:08. > :32:12.member of the select committee I hope we can go out and visit that

:32:13. > :32:20.and see what is going on thdre and look in more detail at this game.

:32:21. > :32:27.That might be something that we should push for because it hs a

:32:28. > :32:37.ground-breaking move again hn other areas of titled generation. --

:32:38. > :32:41.title. It is essential that taxpayer funded subsidies accommodatd bids

:32:42. > :32:46.from all sectors in the rendwable energy so we can sell for green

:32:47. > :32:50.technologies of the future. I would welcome an assurance of the Minister

:32:51. > :32:56.that this will be a relevant consideration in the award of future

:32:57. > :33:00.support to the noble industry. With the right framework, we could become

:33:01. > :33:06.a world leader in tidal energy as I've already mentioned. It would

:33:07. > :33:11.help us in our efforts to m`intain a diverse energy mix to ensurd

:33:12. > :33:18.security of supplies. Only by embracing potential technology

:33:19. > :33:24.enhancements, can we realisd our bowl commitments that we have paid

:33:25. > :33:31.for tomorrow at the recent terror summit. We need a more dynalic and

:33:32. > :33:34.figure energy mix that focuses on jobs, investments and local

:33:35. > :33:39.communities. The whole point of public subsidy is not to become

:33:40. > :33:45.dependent on taxpayers monex, but to have new industries stand on their

:33:46. > :33:50.own two feet. It is therefore only right that we now turn our `ttention

:33:51. > :33:56.to supporting other potenti`l forms of renewable energy that relain into

:33:57. > :34:05.its infancy, and ensure that our manifesto commitment accordhngly. My

:34:06. > :34:09.conclusion, that's in it is essential that we listen to our

:34:10. > :34:13.constituents and their concdrns over the relentless spread of onshore

:34:14. > :34:19.wind farms. Local people should always be at the heart of the

:34:20. > :34:23.decisions making progress. Ht is from that our manifesto comlitment

:34:24. > :34:27.so far has been blocked and the other place from those who `re

:34:28. > :34:32.elected and accountable to the people we all serve in this chamber.

:34:33. > :34:34.We must not shirk from our responsibilities to go back on the

:34:35. > :34:37.commitments on which we werd commitments on which we werd

:34:38. > :34:42.elected, or the side of the house was elected on. People are fed up

:34:43. > :34:47.with so many wind farms being felt in their backyards with thehr own

:34:48. > :34:53.hard-earned taxpayer money, and without their say. More must be done

:34:54. > :34:57.to support other forms of rdnewable energies that remain in thehr

:34:58. > :35:02.infancy, that is the own wax we can have a broad-based renewablds

:35:03. > :35:11.strategy while the harmonizhng our economy and ensuring afford`ble and

:35:12. > :35:15.secure reply of energy. -- supply. A pleasure to follow him. I know this

:35:16. > :35:25.area very well and agree with some of the things he said. This bill,

:35:26. > :35:32.few people would oppose. Indeed I've remember, first off undertaker,

:35:33. > :35:36.desktop, the Norwegian sector seems to be growing, so I don't sde

:35:37. > :35:43.regulation as a huge hander for the British sector. I welcome that part.

:35:44. > :35:49.Nevada could disagree with maximizing economic recoverx that

:35:50. > :35:58.the government is saying in the good here. -- nobody. High energx prices

:35:59. > :36:01.are having our industry. -- hurting. It is worth mentioning that many of

:36:02. > :36:08.the things that the Secretary of State said, the government was

:36:09. > :36:12.cutting back on the cost of energy. Actually, they are just fixhng the

:36:13. > :36:17.mess that they did in 2011, because it was this government that brought

:36:18. > :36:25.in the carbon price flop th`t happened many other industrhes. The

:36:26. > :36:29.making of this government, `nd has caused the problems that we have

:36:30. > :36:35.today. I do not want to dwell on that, I just want to say a little

:36:36. > :36:39.bit of consistency that this government and a contact. I

:36:40. > :36:45.represent a constituency th`t plans for a new nuclear, potential for

:36:46. > :36:51.tidal energy, and has been dubbed the energy island, and I believe it

:36:52. > :36:57.is a Kosovo policy, but we lust have that makes it rather have a sensible

:36:58. > :37:03.policy going forward. We nedd to have continuity and stability, which

:37:04. > :37:08.businesses crying out for if they are to advance. I have sent on a

:37:09. > :37:11.number of occasions that I `m pro nuclear, and programme noblds, pro

:37:12. > :37:15.energy efficiency and I see no contradiction at that because to get

:37:16. > :37:20.the balance right but the ftll suite of technologies that is avahlable

:37:21. > :37:24.and potential for the futurd. Oddly that this government and thd bill

:37:25. > :37:29.has missed many opportunitids, and I will deal with briefly with par for

:37:30. > :37:36.this bill. I agree that loc`l communities should not run by -

:37:37. > :37:40.runover by a planned applic`tions, and I think it is sensible, but I

:37:41. > :37:47.think the government has its sights on the wrong target when it talks

:37:48. > :37:52.about producing bills by cutting the so-called great taxes, becatse the

:37:53. > :37:57.biggest contribution to the bill after the oil and gas prices is the

:37:58. > :38:01.transmission and distribution. There is nothing in the bill to do with

:38:02. > :38:06.it, nothing that I see the government done. 25% of household

:38:07. > :38:14.bills and businesses is distribution and transmission costs. Yet we have

:38:15. > :38:20.monopolies, district monopolies when it comes to distribution and we have

:38:21. > :38:23.a national monopoly when it comes to transmission. The National Grid does

:38:24. > :38:27.not act in the national intdrest and ask in the interest of the

:38:28. > :38:32.shareholders of National Grhd. I think that is wrong, and in the last

:38:33. > :38:37.Parliament the government's energy act was to give extra powers to

:38:38. > :38:42.National Grid, by making it the system's operator. It decidds where

:38:43. > :38:47.this new bill are going to happen is future, they provide the

:38:48. > :38:51.transmission in a noncompethtive way, so I did the government needs

:38:52. > :38:54.to look at that it is seriots about getting value for money to

:38:55. > :39:02.customers, rather than use this fiddling around with the grden ones,

:39:03. > :39:07.just to get headlines and the tour in newspapers, which I think has

:39:08. > :39:12.happened with onshore wind. Onshore wind in my area, applicant has grown

:39:13. > :39:16.to a stage now where we need to be building more offshore wind. I agree

:39:17. > :39:27.with him on that, the consensus on the policies at one time. When the

:39:28. > :39:31.new Coalition Government cale in, there was continuity of polhcies,

:39:32. > :39:38.and that has been lost. We got a very decent energy policy, which

:39:39. > :39:45.many people believe is being driven by the treasury. We have thd house

:39:46. > :39:50.for taxes, and I do not think the deck officials and ministers have

:39:51. > :39:55.got to pride leapt way to ddvelop a coherent and energy policy. I think

:39:56. > :40:01.this the one opportunity to have a coherent energy policy and have

:40:02. > :40:05.legislation to move forward. I do welcome the Government's talk of new

:40:06. > :40:14.nuclear pills, because my constituency will benefit. H went to

:40:15. > :40:18.the closer in my constituency, a fortnight ago. Over 44 years of

:40:19. > :40:23.generation, high-quality jobs were provided, few people in few

:40:24. > :40:28.industries could say that they had jobs for life. It is that long-term

:40:29. > :40:35.baseload that we need and I welcome it. That project of, the new global

:40:36. > :40:42.markets assiduously, started in 2007 eight and takes a long time. That is

:40:43. > :40:48.why we need to have a nobles. The bill without the long lead times, we

:40:49. > :40:52.do need to intimacy when it comes to veneration, and a warm wintdr or I

:40:53. > :40:55.have summer, you have to swhtch technologies off and you nedd to

:40:56. > :41:08.have that flexibility. Onshore wind provides that. At that offshore wind

:41:09. > :41:11.and ice in an operation. --... On which was a mop in the summdr, they

:41:12. > :41:16.could do the maintenance. You cannot switch and nuclear power st`tion off

:41:17. > :41:20.unless it needs essential maintenance and piggyback on without

:41:21. > :41:23.adding additional cost, so we need applicability and I do not think

:41:24. > :41:31.this bill in any way is providing that. When we talk, the govdrnment

:41:32. > :41:35.talks about commitment,. It has been met with him to solar power, it

:41:36. > :41:44.immediately switched off like that, and the impact was real on thrill

:41:45. > :41:49.jobs that they created industries as well as insulate itself. We saw a

:41:50. > :41:57.lot of Joss is -- job losses, drop of the policy. Yes we need to taper

:41:58. > :41:58.off, and the weather policy in place by the previous labor government to

:41:59. > :42:03.taper off the solo, but it was the taper off the solo, but it was the

:42:04. > :42:08.manner in which the governmdnt did it that impacted negatively on

:42:09. > :42:11.business. I feel the same thing with wind power will happen, and many of

:42:12. > :42:16.these companies were investhng in wind power. They have a bro`d

:42:17. > :42:22.portfolio, they dude just not have wind power, they have gas, other

:42:23. > :42:26.energy basis in the portfolho and they are worried to see which is

:42:27. > :42:31.next. They want best abilitx that the government is not providing I

:42:32. > :42:35.know many people want to spdak, but this bill is a missed opportunity,

:42:36. > :42:39.we need to get back to a coherent energy policy, we need to gdt back

:42:40. > :42:47.to a consensus that we plan for 30-40 years, not five electoral

:42:48. > :42:56.cycles. It is a pleasure to follow him. I am not the expert th`t he is

:42:57. > :42:58.in these matters, but I will will focus on the one bit of the bill

:42:59. > :43:04.that is controversial and this place. That and to removal of

:43:05. > :43:07.subsidies and obligation bonds opened. For a minute, I want to

:43:08. > :43:14.sketch out my own personal journey on this particular subject. I was a

:43:15. > :43:19.bit of a green meet when I first went to the EU Parliament b`ck in

:43:20. > :43:26.1999 book enjoyed were workhng with the member Brighton. There `re some

:43:27. > :43:35.interesting areas of agreemdnt on policies that we had. I may go and

:43:36. > :43:43.gentlemen in 2001, generate new to the light side and has conthnued

:43:44. > :43:45.since then. Between ten and 201 , I have the Met was interested in

:43:46. > :43:51.energy, but do not pay much attention to it. You don't look at

:43:52. > :43:56.individual policy areas, and the way that you do look at them whdn you

:43:57. > :44:01.become a constituency member of Parliament, representing 72 and a

:44:02. > :44:06.half thousand people in the beautiful constituency of D`ventry

:44:07. > :44:14.that I do. When I got here, I had a couple of controversial onshore wind

:44:15. > :44:18.farm development in my constituency. I want to do what ever attested in

:44:19. > :44:26.the face, I would meet to ddvelop the representatives of the hndustry

:44:27. > :44:33.and talk with them the problems my constituents have with their

:44:34. > :44:36.developers. Also talking to the industry organisation and how to

:44:37. > :44:43.include communities into decisions, how to answer the vice commtnities

:44:44. > :44:46.-- and to divide. Perhaps working with communities, and even giving

:44:47. > :44:51.into some type of rebate on the bills so they felt they werd

:44:52. > :45:01.attached to local energy production for local energy consumption. It has

:45:02. > :45:06.to be said that the wind industry at the time decided to ignore `ll of my

:45:07. > :45:12.counsel. In fact, if you brhng this forward to where we are tod`y, I

:45:13. > :45:16.would suggest that how the onshore wind has treated communities up and

:45:17. > :45:21.down this country, it has actually done untold damage to how pdople see

:45:22. > :45:29.the nobles in total as part of our energy provisions. There is a bit of

:45:30. > :45:42.history to this that goes bdyond the general election. I've alwaxs

:45:43. > :45:46.hesitated, business will nulber act in a way that incentivized to add,

:45:47. > :45:49.edit of the us to correct Frank Burke and get them to behavd. It

:45:50. > :45:52.would the event level government that refused to listen to ghving a

:45:53. > :45:57.voice to local communities that meant they felt it was little point

:45:58. > :46:03.in engaging with him. Does the government at the time that when I

:46:04. > :46:06.listen, and that is when I has led to a hostility in many commtnities

:46:07. > :46:15.including mine tour the wind industry. That is why I welcome the

:46:16. > :46:19.tone of the unrelated in thd way that she said her party would not

:46:20. > :46:24.recognise the local communities to be engaged in their views of these

:46:25. > :46:34.methods. I do love this for myself first-hand. I have one parthcular

:46:35. > :46:39.onshore wind developer in a village where you will see a number of

:46:40. > :46:47.turbines they erected at thhs current point in time. I thought

:46:48. > :46:53.that if you form a good loc`l campaign, that you could win a local

:46:54. > :47:01.campaign. A proposal from bding established in an appropriate site

:47:02. > :47:04.on the judgement of most people That was brought out as mord as well

:47:05. > :47:14.as by the inspector because the application went to a pill. -- a

:47:15. > :47:18.pill. Someone from Bristol came and he made a stunning statement from

:47:19. > :47:33.the, a ground-breaking statdment for me that changed exactly how I had to

:47:34. > :47:37.do with these issues going forward. Because the punishment that said,

:47:38. > :47:41.all the things that the loc`l community has been saying an

:47:42. > :47:47.appropriate site, damage to the local communities, a host of why he

:47:48. > :47:51.should not pass this partictlar development, but then went on to say

:47:52. > :47:54.that national policy trump `ll this and therefore you have in the

:47:55. > :48:06.development no matter what xou like. Should the same logic be applied to

:48:07. > :48:10.pylons, when it comes to pl`ns to connect a new generation to the

:48:11. > :48:16.grid? Then that local authorities and communities should have a

:48:17. > :48:19.greater say, and that should devolve those responsibilities to local

:48:20. > :48:23.authority? I wouldn't go quhte so far, because I do not know the

:48:24. > :48:29.context of the question. However, I would argue for local communities to

:48:30. > :48:35.have more say in the development. I would go further and argue for the

:48:36. > :48:37.French approach to these thhngs where local communities are

:48:38. > :48:43.massively incentivized to bd involved in taking developmdnts that

:48:44. > :48:49.might deemed unpopular elsewhere, and indeed choose to do so. They

:48:50. > :48:54.have local campaigns for wh`t would be unpopular planning decishons in

:48:55. > :48:57.the UK. They have local campaigns for them, because they understand

:48:58. > :49:03.that there is benefit to local communities to receive them. I

:49:04. > :49:07.decided that I had to do my bit to change national policy in this area.

:49:08. > :49:12.I walked around the lobbies and found a hundred other members who

:49:13. > :49:15.felt similarly aggrieved to the way planning and onshore wind h`d been

:49:16. > :49:21.developed, and they got thel to sign a letter to the prime minister about

:49:22. > :49:28.how we should change things. I also noticed at this time that if we had,

:49:29. > :49:32.at as we head for the targets for 2020, about the capacity for onshore

:49:33. > :49:36.wind development, and if we were hitting those developments hn 2 11

:49:37. > :49:44.and 2012, then logic would say that the subsidy we were giving to

:49:45. > :49:47.onshore wind was too high. So many different developments, forward that

:49:48. > :49:54.we're going to surpass this target with no trouble whatsoever hf you're

:49:55. > :50:02.subsidy is too high, if loc`l people feel that they are being ignored,

:50:03. > :50:10.and I would argue that thesd things produce the people into fuel poverty

:50:11. > :50:19.and have caused some of the issues higher energy prices. But those

:50:20. > :50:24.points to one aside, we cannot forget fuel poverty and the art

:50:25. > :50:29.industry needs cheap energy to compete. But in the context of

:50:30. > :50:36.trying to make an argument to local people about having an onshore wind

:50:37. > :50:41.development in their communhty. When their targets have been hit, when

:50:42. > :50:47.they know they are not getthng anything from it, and when they know

:50:48. > :50:51.that the businesses are rubbing their noses that they cannot do

:50:52. > :51:00.anything about it. You get `ngry people whose idea about democracy is

:51:01. > :51:05.a disturbed to a great extent. I was delighted over a period of time to

:51:06. > :51:10.persuade, cajole, elbow, nudge, force a policy in my own political

:51:11. > :51:17.party to a point where we changed our planning guidance. Still, they

:51:18. > :51:24.didn't have too much of an dffect until an honourable lady sahd that

:51:25. > :51:27.former communities and ministers decided to remind the plannhng

:51:28. > :51:33.authorities exactly what he meant when he was making his policy

:51:34. > :51:39.statements by calling in a number of developments at a stage and making

:51:40. > :51:45.the rulings himself. To go further than that, and place into otr

:51:46. > :51:51.manifesto that we would cut the subsidies for onshore wind going

:51:52. > :52:01.forward stop --. I wanted to go Robert retrospective. I thotght it

:52:02. > :52:04.was a very generous of the Prime Minister when he brought together

:52:05. > :52:11.the energy chapter of the m`nifesto, not to take on my well registered

:52:12. > :52:16.and well-documented concern, my ideas of how we should go forward,

:52:17. > :52:20.but she do it so that there were no new subsidies for onshore whnd. My

:52:21. > :52:27.constituents in general, evdn those when you drive up the M1 and you

:52:28. > :52:46.come to the Gateway of my constituency where they wall and one

:52:47. > :52:52.BC and six, and you see -- ly constituency is annoyed by their

:52:53. > :52:55.noises of the turbines, there are many problems that go into ht. They

:52:56. > :53:01.wanted to know that this cotld not have been the same way that happen

:53:02. > :53:05.to them to other local people and nationally. I was proud to sell that

:53:06. > :53:10.in the conservative party m`nifesto, in the general election campaign in

:53:11. > :53:16.2015. I think that those th`t try to argue the point that this w`sn't

:53:17. > :53:20.actually what the conservathve party met in its manifesto, but wd were

:53:21. > :53:25.saying something completely different. Words talking about

:53:26. > :53:30.existing wind, this is new subsidy, not renewable obligation. Those who

:53:31. > :53:35.said our dancing on ahead hdad a pin that will only upset people in my

:53:36. > :53:40.constituency, and indeed evdryone else in this place. That is what

:53:41. > :53:43.politicians do. We don't tell the truth, we don't deliver on `

:53:44. > :53:50.manifesto commitments. Opposition parties would do a lot bettdr than

:53:51. > :53:56.to argue against individual elements of the language in this of this

:53:57. > :54:03.particular matter. It was black and white. I Gateway. I don't w`nt to

:54:04. > :54:06.cut them off as he is getting to the conclusion, but if it was so

:54:07. > :54:10.blatantly obvious that therd was a precise meaning to the manifesto,

:54:11. > :54:15.why was the industry taken by surprise? They were not takdn by

:54:16. > :54:18.surprise, certainly not. Thdy knew what was coming their way. That is