Blog

Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on the Energy Prices Bill

The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2022.

Obviously everybody in the House welcomes any measures that will help people with the cost of energy crisis, but it beggars belief that this emergency legislation is being rushed through Parliament today, yet at 11 o’clock this morning the Chancellor pulled the rug from under it by saying that the support package will be not for two years, but for only six months.

It was only last week that the Prime Minister’s robotic response to any question put to her was “Energy price guarantee for two years.” She stated that her measures would prevent households from paying more than £6,000 in energy costs in future. If the energy support package is to be pulled in April, what will the average future household bill look like? The Government say that they will bring in support to help the most vulnerable, but people need to know what their bills will look like. This is scaring millions of people, and the Government need to get a grip. When will we know what their support for the most vulnerable will look like? Will they give proper consideration to alternatives such as social tariffs?

The Secretary of State was very clear in spelling out that the so-called guarantee is just a price cap per unit of energy, and that £2,500 is just an estimate for an average household. It is just a pity that the Prime Minister did not understand that: when she was doing media rounds for the Tory party conference, she kept saying that households would not pay more than £2,500. Her rhetoric was dangerous and misleading. Unfortunately, some families might have the wrong impression of the household bills they will pay, because the Prime Minister did not understand her so-called flagship policy.

Even as we talk about limiting average bills to £2,500, we need to remember that just a year and a half ago the cap was set at £1,100, so energy bills for everybody are more than doubling. That is really difficult for people to deal with, and other costs are going up as well. Although the Government talk about an average bill of £2,500, it has been estimated that in Scotland the average household will pay £3,300, which is really difficult for people to manage. In Argyll and Bute, one of the most rural communities, the average dual fuel bill will be £4,400. Families are really struggling. National Energy Action estimates that 6.7 million households in Great Britain will be in fuel poverty even with the support package that the Government have announced, so we have really big concerns about what fuel poverty will look like when the package is lifted in April.

Off-grid homes in rural Scotland and in rural Great Britain will suffer even more and will have to pay much higher costs, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) pointed out in his intervention. The Secretary of State says that he will provide workings for the one-off £100 payment, but no matter what workings he provides, £100 will not be enough for people to deal with the increased cost of filling their oil or liquefied petroleum gas tanks.

Sammy Wilson

I do not know what calculations have been done in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland the regulator has estimated that to give equivalence, there would have to be a payment of £500 per consumer. There needs to be greater transparency about that.

Alan Brown

I have not seen that figure, but I agree that it seems more realistic. The reality is that the minimum delivery for a fuel tank costs £500 to £600, and completely filling a fuel tank costs £1,200. The cost per litre has gone up from about 30p to more than £1. It is a crippling cost, and there is no way that £100 will do anything to help people in the circumstances.

It is fair to say that it is effectively Scotland that is paying for the support packages. First, the oil and gas windfall tax was clearly about the revenues from the North sea, and now the new measures are being charged to Scotland’s renewables sector. At the time, we challenged the Government to consider that in investment tax write-offs for the oil and gas sector, investment in renewables should be part of the deductible policy. That was ignored.

Unless the detail of the cap revenue mechanism is examined properly, there is a risk that future investment in renewables will be put in jeopardy. Bizarrely, as the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said, we will incentivise people to invest in fossil fuels rather than renewables, which is certainly not the way to bring down bills. Another disparity between the Bill and the oil and gas profits levy is the time specified in the sunset clause: for the oil and gas profits levy, it is only two years. We need to ensure that we do not disincentivise investment in renewables.

The Bill gives too much power to Ministers, with not enough parliamentary scrutiny. At one time the Secretary of State was a so-called champion of parliamentary scrutiny, but now that he is in the Cabinet he seems quite happy to take on parallel powers for himself, including the ability to spend sums of up to £100 million without any approval from the House. Even beyond £100 million, if he feels that it is too difficult to get a resolution of the House, he can still justify spending that much. That is hardly parliamentary sovereignty.

We need to know much more about how the revenue caps will be set. What assessment has the Secretary of State made in respect of hedging? He touched on the fact that a lot of energy has been sold forward. How will the Government deal with that? How will they deal with multiple ownership structures? What discussions has he had with the sector?

We welcome support for consumers, but given the Chancellor’s announcements today, there is clearly not enough. There is too much uncertainty for business. There is too much power in the Secretary of State’s hands. I would like to think that he will agree to amendments in Committee that would return a bit of power to Parliament and to this House, because we know he really believes in that. However, this shambles shows yet again that to go forward, what the people of Scotland really need is independence, proper utilisation of oil and gas revenues, and investment in a truly green future.

October 19, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : PM Liz Truss call with President Macron of France [18 October 2022]

The press release issued by Downing Street on 19 October 2022.

The Prime Minister spoke to French President Emmanuel Macron this afternoon.

The leaders discussed their deep concern at Russia’s recent barbaric attacks on civilian areas in Ukraine.

They agreed the UK and France will continue to work closely together with allies to support Ukraine and coordinate our response to Russian aggression.

The Prime Minister and President Macron also welcomed the recent opportunity to meet in person at the leaders’ summit in Prague, and looked forward to continuing to deepen bilateral cooperation.

October 19, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Investigatory powers Commissioner reappointment of Sir Brian Leveson [October 2022]

The press release issued by 10 Downing Street on 19 October 2022.

The Prime Minister has approved the appointment of Sir Brian Leveson as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) for a second three-year term, with effect from 21st October 2022.

Background

Sir Brian was appointed as the second IPC in October 2019, succeeding Sir Adrian Fulford. Before retiring as a senior judge in 2019, he was President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Head of Criminal Justice.

The IPC is responsible for the independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, ensuring they are used in accordance with the law and in the public interest. He is supported by a number of Judicial Commissioners, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) and the Office for Communications Data Authorisations (OCDA).

October 19, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : £170 million finance deal boosts British construction firms in Africa [October 2022]
The press release issued by the Department for International Trade on 19 October 2022.
- UK Government announces two landmark finance packages worth combined £174.5 million for vital construction projects in Benin and Togo
- UK Export Finance support will unlock £82 million in export opportunities for UK businesses and build key infrastructure
- Trade Minister James Duddridge to announce deals at first UK-Francophone West & Central Africa Trade & Investment Forum
UK firms are set to benefit from landmark new deals worth a combined £174.5 million to finance construction projects in Benin and Togo.

The deals, funded by both Deutsche Bank and MUFG Bank and guaranteed by UK Export Finance (UKEF), will be announced by Trade Minister James Duddridge today (19 October) in a speech to the inaugural UK-Francophone West and Central Africa Trade and Investment Forum in London.

The event will bring together senior politicians and business leaders from eight African nations to boost trade and investment opportunities across a continent with an economy worth £2.6 trillion.

The deals come as the government ramps up its support for West and Central Africa trade, reinforcing the UK’s ambition to be Africa’s investment partner of choice.

Minister of State for International Trade, James Duddridge said:

This landmark finance package will help businesses capitalise on investment prospects, support high-value jobs and provide new opportunities for UK exporters in some of the world’s fastest-growing markets.

UK Export Finance has supported more than £760 million of projects in the Francophone West & Central Africa region in the last year, and we want to do even more. Today’s Forum is another opportunity to show the UK’s ambition to be Africa’s investment partner of choice has never been stronger.

UKEF, the UK’s world-class export credit agency, has guaranteed a landmark £106.5 million loan from Deutsche Bank to the Benin Government which will fund the construction of a new Ministerial City in Benin.

The project will transform the country’s government complex and unlock £35 million in export opportunities for UK businesses, who will supply equipment to Benin for the construction work whilst creating local jobs.

Duddridge will also announce £68.6 million of UKEF-guaranteed financing from MUFG Bank to build a vital new road between Benin and Togo. This will accelerate inter-Africa trade, by opening up routes to dynamic markets, and unlock £47 million worth of UK exports to the region.

At the same time, the road will connect over 200,000 people living in Togo’s Central Region with safer and crucial transport links to Benin.

His Majesty’s Trade Commissioner for Africa, John Humphrey said:

UK Export Finance has witnessed a growing interest in French-speaking West and Central African markets – an appetite which has seen consistent year on year increases.

Recent successes in these markets include an award-winning and record-breaking financing facility for primary healthcare in Cote d’Ivoire, and an innovative infrastructure financing facility in Cameroon.

Rose Kayi Mivedor, Togo Government Minister for Investment Promotion, added:

This project is part of Togo’s Wider Road Infrastructure plan. Our government continues to make strategic investments in infrastructure to build and maintain a road network that not only helps move people and goods, but also stimulates growth in relevant cities.

UKEF participation confirms the project strength and viability and through its expertise, the parties were able to put in place an affordable financing solution that will make this priority project a success for Togo’s economy.

The UK was Europe’s top investor in Africa this year, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development’s 2022 world investment report.

Today’s new UKEF deals build on £3.2 billion of support for projects across the continent in the past two years, with even more deals expected in the year ahead.
October 19, 2022
John Redwood – 2022 Speech on the Energy Prices Bill

The speech made by John Redwood, the Conservative MP for Wokingham, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2022.

I welcome the Government’s announcement today that this scheme should be time-limited to six months and that a different scheme should be developed against the possibility that energy prices remain very high for the months thereafter. I do not think that we can go on indefinitely at the rate of the cost of this particular scheme over the winter. If this continues, we need to target the support much more clearly on the many people and families in this country who could not afford the bills otherwise and leave those who have rather more money and are using rather more energy on luxuries to pay more of that for themselves. We have time to sort out a scheme that we can target better. I am sure that this Committee, and the dialogue that will continue, will make sure, through pressure from Back Benchers and Front Benchers, that we do not leave anybody out. It is very important that everybody has proper support one way or another so that they can afford their energy bills this winter and beyond.

I am also sure that the long-term solution is more domestic energy. We cannot carry on relying on unreliable imports, which can, at times, force our country to pay extreme prices on world markets to top up our gas or electricity because we do not have enough for ourselves. We are a fortunate country with many opportunities to produce fossil fuel and renewable energy. We have been a bit lax in recent years in not putting in enough investment, so I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at the incentives—as I am sure he will—and at the predictability of contracts and investment, so that Britain is a great place in which to invest for these purposes, and so we can exploit more of our energy and have more reliable supplies, even generating a surplus in some areas so that we can help Europe, which is very short of energy and does not have many of our natural advantages.

My concluding point is that we cannot go on for too long with a complex net of subsidies, price controls and interventions without damaging the marketplace more widely and sending the wrong signals, so I am glad that this measure will be short-term. We need a better system for the future so that there can be plenty of support for those on low incomes if energy prices remain high, but also much more investment to solve the underlying problem.

October 19, 2022
Ed Miliband – 2022 Speech on the Energy Prices Bill

The speech made by Ed Miliband, the Shadow Business Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2022.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to be as brief as I can to let as many people as possible speak in this debate.

Let me start by saying that Labour called for support for families and businesses in August through an energy price freeze, so we will support the passage of the Bill. I thank the Secretary of State for the conversations we have had on the Bill. This is an incredibly serious issue for families and businesses across the country.

I have to say, before I get into the detail, what a shambles this Government are. We are debating what they describe as their landmark Bill for a two-year price guarantee. It was published only last Wednesday and it has already been shredded by the Chancellor this morning. Last Wednesday, Members were in the House for Prime Minister’s questions. The Prime Minister went on and on about her decisive action of a two-year guarantee. She even derided the Opposition’s approach of a six-month freeze, seeking to spread to fear about what would happen in March, and now the Government have adopted our proposal. Never mind a vision; never mind a plan for the years ahead—this Government cannot even give us a plan for the coming week. They are truly in office but not in power. This matters, because families and businesses need to be able to plan.

I want to talk about the substantive action in the Bill and the way that the revenue to pay for it is raised, because there are important issues for the House. On the substantive action, there is a contrast with our six-month package. That was a real freeze, not a rise in bills, and £129 for millions of families across the country is significant. That even takes account of the £400. I worry about off-grid households, which we will talk about in Committee. I understand the basis of the Secretary of State’s argument. Our costed package provided £1,000 to help off-grid households. The Bill provides just a tenth of the support, and even with the Government’s measures, the University of York estimates that more than 10 million families will be in fuel poverty, so we will want to debate those issues during the Bill’s passage.

I will focus my remarks on the second set of issues relating to the way that funding for the Bill is provided, which is important. Our argument five weeks ago, when the Government announced their energy price guarantee, was that they should do everything they could to find some of the money for this intervention from the energy companies that are making enormous profits. Anyone who heard the Business Secretary’s dulcet tones on the radio last week will have heard him say that there is no windfall tax in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) described it as a “surrogate windfall tax”, which is a new invention. However, page 3 of the Bill’s explanatory notes states:

“The Bill aims to do the following…Require certain generators currently receiving supernormal revenues to make a payment to a third party…for purposes of lowering the cost of electricity for consumers, or to meet expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State”.

Payments on the basis of windfalls received to lower the cost of electricity for consumers, or to meet expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—it sounds like a windfall tax. It works like a windfall tax. It talks like a windfall tax. It is a windfall tax.

I want to hear during this debate that the Government will definitely use the powers to have a windfall tax that are in clause 16. That matters, because while we set out a clear plan for a windfall tax, the truth is that the Government, having resisted a windfall tax tooth and nail, have now taken the broadest and most ill-defined powers imaginable. Companies and the public have no idea from the Bill about the size of the levy, how much it will raise and how there will be fairness with the fossil fuel windfall tax that the previous Chancellor announced —to remind the House, that was four Chancellors ago, in May this year.

We will probe two issues that go to the question of whether we will raise sufficient resources from the windfall tax, or “surrogate windfall tax”, in the Bill. First, according to their press release, the Government will start the windfall tax on electricity generators only in 2023. Those months of delay matter, because it will mean billions in extraordinary profits being left—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Secretary of State is shaking his head. This is a very important point: that will leave billions of pounds of extraordinary profits with the companies, and it means that the British people will be forced to foot billions more of the bill for energy price support. If having a windfall tax is the right thing to do, why not have it from the date of the intervention in September? I am very happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman so he can explain why he is not doing that.

Mr Rees-Mogg

I am very happy to explain. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the energy companies have sold their electricity forward, and therefore the profit is not accruing on the prices at which they have sold it forward.

Edward Miliband

That would mean that there are no windfalls, so why is the Secretary of State having a special payment made by the energy companies anyway? That makes no sense at all. We will definitely want to probe that during the debate. How can it possibly all have been sold forward, as he says? So he is saying that the energy companies are currently making no windfalls. That does rather prompt the question: why are they going to have to make special payments, if it has all been sold forward and they are making no windfall profits?

Secondly, I want to talk about the question of the level playing field in what is happening to the fossil fuel companies and to the electricity generators. The previous Chancellor but one—I think that is right—introduced a super-deduction for fossil fuel companies as part of his windfall tax. That means that for every pound invested in oil and gas and fracking, companies get 91p back. But to be clear: that is not available to renewables, nuclear or other zero-carbon technology. That is an absurd tilting of the playing field towards fossil fuels and against investments in cheap, home-grown, clean power, and that is absolutely indefensible. It will not reduce bills. We will want to use the Bill as best we can, given the constraints of its scope, to debate the merits of that provision. I urge the House to support attempts to eliminate that preposterous loophole.

In the time I have left, let me deal with the wider questions about the Bill. We will continue to be in this position unless we learn the proper lessons from this crisis. Those lessons are not some extreme fringe idea that fracking, which will not lower bills, is somehow the answer to the problems that we face. The answer is a clean sprint for clean energy—for solar, wind, nuclear as part of that and energy efficiency all together.

The other day, the Secretary of State wrote an article in The Guardian, in which he said, “Dear Guardian reader”:

“I can assure Guardian readers that I am not a ‘green energy sceptic’.”

Let him prove it. He is for fracking, which will not lower bills and is dangerous. His colleague, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is seeking to block solar energy worth 34 GW—the equivalent of 10 nuclear power stations. That is not some whim of the DEFRA Secretary, but an instruction from the Prime Minister, who said that she does not like the look of solar panels. If the Business Secretary wants to convince people that he understands the stakes and what is necessary to get out of this crisis, he needs to make a proper sprint for green energy.

The other thing that the Business Secretary needs to do—we will again discuss this during the passage of the Bill, and I think he may agree with this—is set a timetable for the proper de-linking of electricity and gas prices. We suggest that we should set a two-year timetable in the Bill for that to happen.

Let me end by saying that the Bill is necessary, because we need support to be put on the statute book, but the truth about the Government is that they are lurching from U-turn to U-turn, and they cannot provide the country with the strategic direction that it needs to get out of the crisis. The truth is that, day by day, they are showing that they are out of ideas, out of time, and now, in the national interest, they should be out of power, too.

October 19, 2022
Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Statement on the Energy Prices Bill

The statement made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2022.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am glad that the House has agreed to the amended allocation of time motion—otherwise, I would have been in danger of filibustering my own motion. I am sure that hon. Members across the House agree with me about the urgency of this legislation. Nevertheless, I thank hon. Members for the speed with which the Bill is being considered. In particular, I thank Members of His Majesty’s official Opposition, and especially the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), for their constructive engagement.

The world is facing a global energy crisis, which has been exacerbated by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The soaring cost of energy means that families and businesses across the United Kingdom are facing rising energy bills this winter. On 8 September, the Prime Minister announced an unprecedented package of assistance, which will support households, businesses, charities and public sector organisations across the UK with the increasing cost of energy. This decisive action will help deal with the rising cost of energy while reducing inflation and supporting economic growth. The Bill puts the assistance announced by the Prime Minister on a secure legislative footing. The legislation is crucial to providing immediate support to people and businesses.

The domestic scheme, the energy price guarantee that was announced, is already up and running. The Bill prioritises the legislative underpinnings of that scheme. The energy price guarantee will provide support to the end of March 2023 that will be equivalent to an annual bill of £2,500 for the typical household. The average unit price for dual-fuel customers on standard variable tariffs subject to Ofgem’s price cap paying by direct debit will be limited to 34p per kWh for electricity and 10.3p per kWh for gas, inclusive of VAT, from 1 October. It is important to emphasise that per-unit use.

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)

The Secretary of State will be aware that, in constituencies such as mine, a large number of homes are off the gas grid. The Government have come up with an alternative fuel payment of about £100 for those homes, but oil prices have nearly doubled. I know that changes to the whole policy have been announced by the Chancellor today, but will he commit to equivalent support for those off the gas grid?

Mr Rees-Mogg

I will come to that, but the intention is that the support should be equivalent to that for people on the grid.

Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)

Talking about an average household bill of £2,500, the Prime Minister said that the measures would stop people paying £6,000 on average, but the explanatory notes to the Bill estimate that the measures will save people from bills reaching £4,200. Given that the support will end in April, what can people who, after April, will not be receiving any support expect to pay for an average household bill?

Mr Rees-Mogg

The Bill is setting the immediate support, which will run until April. The Government are reviewing how to ensure that support is more targeted in future, but there is no question that there will be support, and the Bill provides the powers for that. It is important to emphasise that bills will still depend on usage. That is why I am grateful for the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has emphasised the advantages of a prudent use of energy benefiting all users.

Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)

The Secretary of State talks about energy usage and families not having bills of more than £2,500, but bills for large families with high usage will be far, far more. How can families have certainty? If the Government will not have a communications campaign on reducing energy usage—they have said that they are against that on principle—how do we get that message across to people up and down the country?

Mr Rees-Mogg

What we are doing is making it clear that it will depend on usage and that the figures are average figures. The £2,500, therefore, is for an average family and, obviously, not necessarily for all families. Larger families will have particular pressures, but I am coming on to the other support that remains which will help families. The price per unit of electricity and gas is part of the package, but it is of course combined, and we recognise the difficulties that families and businesses will face with higher prices.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward the proposals he is outlining. I am very concerned for those I refer to as the working poor, and I know the Secretary of State is as well. With the cumulative money that people have to pay, the working poor, in my opinion, seem to be the ones who are losing out. Can he give us some reassurance that that will not be the case?

Mr Rees-Mogg

Yes, I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he is asking for. That is why the scheme is as broad as it is. The effect of the price rises we were in danger of seeing was so great that it would have affected people who were not on benefits. They would have found that they were in fuel poverty without this assistance. That is why it is so encompassing. The support is being provided at the point in the year when 60% of consumption takes place.

The energy price guarantee comes in addition to the £400 of support provided by the energy bills support scheme for Great Britain, announced earlier this year.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) rose—

Mr Rees-Mogg

I see the right hon. Gentleman is about to intervene. I will just say one thing, because I am coming on to a point about Northern Ireland on the energy bills support scheme. It will be extended to Northern Ireland to provide domestic consumers with the equivalent level of support being provided to households in Great Britain. This is very much a Unionist package.

Sammy Wilson

First of all, I give our thanks to the Secretary of State for the diligent way he has sought to address the problems in Northern Ireland. He points out that the package is coming at the point of the year where energy consumption is at its highest. In Northern Ireland, because of the difficulties of one electricity company, it may well be that the whole scheme will be held up until it is ready to give a discount on bills. Can he give us an assurance that, since 60% of consumers are with companies that could do it tomorrow, there will be no delay in waiting for the slowest to catch up before the benefits are made available?

Mr Rees-Mogg

The point of the Bill is to bring in support from 1 October. It has already been done in GB for domestic users and it will be retrospective for Northern Ireland. That is what the Bill is trying to achieve.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

The way out of this problem is far more domestic capacity, so that there is a bigger supply in due course. That requires investment. Can my right hon. Friend reassure us that although there will be temporary subsidies, price controls and surrogate windfall taxes, sufficient incentives and signals will be sent to industry that we really do need the investment and that it will be worthwhile?

Mr Rees-Mogg

Yes, indeed. This is a temporary measure. The legislation runs out; there are various sunset clauses that will affect it. We need more of our own supply. Some will be renewable, and some will be oil and gas. We need to ensure that cheap energy flows in this country for the good of the economy.

The legislation will enable the Government to provide support to consumers across the UK who are not on the main gas grid. This will benefit consumers who use alternative fuels to heat their homes, such as heating oil, as well as those who live on heat networks. Eligible households will receive a £100 payment this winter through alternative fuel payment powers, which are introduced under the Bill. The Government will be setting out the support available for non-domestic consumers on the same basis.

The important point on the £100 payment is that it is designed with reference to changes in the price of heating oil from September 2021 to September 2022 and aims to provide support which is equivalent to that received by people who heat their homes using mains gas. I know right hon. and hon. Members are interested in how those figures have been calculated, so I will place more information in the House of Commons Library detailing the basis of our calculation.

In addition, measures in the Bill will extend the energy bills support scheme to UK households that would otherwise miss out on the automatic £400 payment as they do not have a domestic electricity contract. That may be because they receive their energy through an intermediary with a commercial connection, or because they are otherwise off the electricity grid. The Bill will also ensure that in cases where intermediaries receive support from the schemes, they are required to pass it on to the end users as appropriate.

For example, the legislation will provide powers so that landlords are required to pass on support to tenants. His Majesty’s Government are taking action to provide equivalent support to heat network customers. This includes measures that will ensure heat network suppliers pass on the support they receive to their customers. In addition, the Bill provides for the appointment of an alternative dispute resolution body, which will handle complaints raised by consumers against their heat network if it has not passed through the benefit.

Let me turn to non-domestic schemes. As well as helping households, the Government are taking action to provide support to businesses, charities and public sector organisations through the energy bill relief scheme. We will provide support to non-domestic consumers as soon as possible to help businesses and other organisations with their energy bills this winter. The Bill is vital for the implementation of the scheme, which will provide a price reduction to ensure businesses are protected from excessively high bills. Initially, the price reduction will run for six months, covering energy use from 1 October. After three months, the Government will publish a review, which will consider how best to offer further support. It will focus in particular on non-domestic energy users who are most at risk to energy price increases. Additional support for those deemed eligible will begin immediately after the initial six-month support scheme.

In addition to those unprecedented support schemes, the Bill will contain measures that will allow us to protect consumers from paying excessively high prices for low-carbon electricity. The provisions will limit the effect of soaring global gas prices by breaking the link between gas prices and lower cost renewables. This will help to ease the pressure on consumer bills in the short term, while ensuring energy firms are not unduly gaining from the energy crisis. In addition, the Bill will enable the Government to offer a contract for difference to existing generators not already covered by the Government’s contract for difference scheme. This voluntary contract would grant generators longer-term revenue certainty and safeguard consumers from further price rises.

Taken as a whole, the Bill will ensure that families, businesses, charities, schools, hospitals, care homes and all users of energy, receive the urgent support they require owing to the rising costs of global energy prices. In addition, the legislation takes important steps to decouple the link between high gas and electricity prices, which will ensure consumers pay a fair price for their energy. I hope that Members, right hon. and hon. Members alike, will agree that this is a vital and timely piece of legislation.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr Rees-Mogg

I am within a moment of finishing, and I had better finish because time is so short.

This is a crucial package of measures that meets the challenges posed by sky-high global energy prices and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Without the launch of the schemes I have outlined, many individuals and businesses would be left facing growing financial turmoil in the face of increasing energy costs. Now is the time to act and the Bill delivers the support that is required. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

October 19, 2022
Chris Grayling – 2022 Speech on Financial Investment and Deforestation

The speech made by Chris Grayling, the Conservative MP for Epsom and Ewell, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2022.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require banks and investment institutions regulated in the UK to verify and certify that they do not provide any form of financial or investment support to businesses which derive income from forest risk commodities, or that relevant local laws were complied with in relation to such commodities; and for connected purposes.

Deforestation around the world is a critical issue for the future of our natural world and our planet. The loss of forest cover has made climate change worse, has pushed millions of species closer to extinction and continues to cause real damage to ecosystems. The threat to the three biggest forest areas, in the Amazon, the Congo basin and south-east Asia, is particularly acute, and I am very proud that the United Kingdom has taken such a lead in the Congo in particular to try to halt deforestation and protect the key habitats there. I know that Members on both sides of the House share my concern about the conduct of the Brazilian Government over deforestation in the Amazon, and I will continue to use opportunities in the House to push for change there, regardless of who wins power at the elections later this month.

The deforestation threats that remain around the world overwhelmingly result from commercial pressures driven by agriculture. Forests are being cut down to make way for palm oil plantations, for soya production or for cattle ranches. In some places, including Costa Rica and Gabon, Governments have put a brake on deforestation, which is hugely welcome, but in too many places illegal deforestation is still destroying the natural world.

I am proud that this country has been at the forefront of creating legislative frameworks to help to address the commercial exploitation of forest-risk products. The Environment Act 2021 creates the first real framework to require UK businesses to know where their supplies are coming from and whether they come from areas affected by illegal deforestation, although I would say to Ministers that they need to move faster in putting the necessary regulations in place to back up the Act. What we have done should make it much harder for UK retailers to end up selling products from areas where illegal deforestation has taken place, but more needs to be done and that is what this Bill seeks to achieve. Solving the problem of illegal deforestation is not just about identifying where agricultural products originate from, or the sustainability, or otherwise, of supplies of commodities such as timber; it is vital to follow the money as well and that is where we need another round of change.

We should all be proud that the UK has one of the tiny number of major financial centres around the world. The City of London is probably the most important part of our economy today, generating profits that bring taxes to the Exchequer and help to pay for things such as the NHS. But the City is also a place where deals are done that affect countries around the world, so it is a place where corporate responsibility is of exceptional importance. I want the City to provide financial resource and advice to investment projects and to corporations around the world—that is a given, and the City does a good job of it. In doing so, however, the institutions offering those services from the UK also need to be mindful of the impact the finance they provide has on the communities, countries and environments they work with. Although the clearance of an area of rainforest is often carried out at a local level by people creating a new farmland area, rather than by big corporations, it is the corporations that then arrive to buy the products of that illegal land clearance.

The Government are rightly requiring retailers to know where products such as soy and palm oil come from, and that they do not sell products that are sourced from illegally deforested areas, but it has to be right that the financial institutions that bankroll those big corporations also apply a similar standard to the investments that they make, to the banking services that they supply, and to the shares that they purchase.

Over the past couple of years, the Government’s global resource initiative taskforce has looked carefully at this issue and I commend the Ministers involved in setting up that initiative. However, it found that the UK finance sector lends and invests, directly and indirectly, in forest product supply chains where issues genuinely exist. Although it found that there is no overall figure for the UK finance sector’s exposure to forest-risk ventures, it clearly identified that the financial support and investment being provided to companies, sectors and financial institutions with high deforestation risk amounts to hundreds of billions of pounds. It also found that, although a handful of the biggest institutions internationally are working to try to address the issue, the majority of financial institutions have not taken steps to actively assess or manage deforestation risks.

The majority of institutions do not have deforestation policies. Many of these are headquartered in the UK. Many others also operate local branches in the City of London.

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)

Will the right hon. Member give way?

Chris Grayling

If I am allowed to. Am I? No.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

Order. This is a ten-minute rule Bill.

Chris Grayling

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know how passionately the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) feels about this issue. I am glad to number him among the Bill’s sponsors.

Even where the head office team in an institution are working to try to change their approach, all too often decisions are being taken in a branch elsewhere by local teams that end up having the opposite effect. Whether through bond sales, banking services, investment funds or any other route, the reality is that the finance sector globally—this includes some institutions in London—is backing big international corporations that are still doing business directly or indirectly with those cutting down the rainforests. My Bill would change that. It would require financial institutions to include forest risk in the due diligence they do before making any investment or providing any banking service.

We are moving to require retailers to know whether the products that they sell contain forest-risk products from areas of illegal deforestation, and I want to see the investment community required to do the same. I know that regulation and deregulation in the City is a live topic at the moment, and I share the ambition to see the removal of unnecessary red tape that is imposed on our financial services. All too often, regulation ticks a box but does not actually make a difference. However, I do not think that regulation around deforestation is an example of that; it is not the same thing.

It is vital to all of us that we halt the loss of our natural habitats. We cannot afford to see the continuing loss of biodiversity in the Amazon or elsewhere, and the reality is that our financial services sector—whether it intends to or not—is financing those who make illegal deforestation possible. Businesses involved in financing projects around the world already do due diligence to work out financial viability and test risks. The Bill would not impose an extra process on them but simply add something to what they already do. That could make a massive difference. It is essential if we are to step up our combat against deforestation.

We face a problem around the world that is disastrous for all of us. It must stop. My Bill would make it much more difficult for financial institutions to provide the support that is enabling illegal deforestation to take place in too many parts of the world. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Chris Grayling, Andrew Selous, Jim Shannon, Chris Bryant, Wera Hobhouse and Barry Gardiner present the Bill.

Chris Grayling accordingly presented the Bill.

October 18, 2022
Andrea Jenkyns – 2022 Statement on the T-level Overlap List

The statement made by Andrea Jenkyns, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2022.

Today I am notifying Parliament of the next stage of the Government’s reforms to post-16 qualifications at level 3 in England—the publication of the final list of qualifications that overlap with the T-levels in Education and Childcare, Digital, and Construction and the Built Environment.

In our response to the second stage consultation of the review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below, we set out our aims to streamline the qualifications landscape at level 3. The review aims to ensure that only qualifications that are necessary and lead to good outcomes are approved for public funding, delivering greater value for money for the taxpayer. It is important to ensure that all qualifications serve a clear and distinct purpose and lead to good progression and good outcomes for students. Supporting students to make a choice at 16 between an excellent academic or an excellent technical route will prepare students better for the next phase of their lives.

We have already removed funding approval from over 5,000 qualifications at level 3 and below that had no or low enrolments.

On 11 May Parliament was notified of the commencement of the next stage of our review—to remove funding approval for qualifications that overlap with T-levels. The rigour of T-levels, combined with the meaningful industry placement of at least 45 days, will equip more young people with the skills, knowledge and experience necessary to access skilled employment or further technical study. The results for the first three T-levels awarded in summer 2022 were fantastic, with a 92% pass rate—and feedback from this first group of students indicates that they have progressed to a variety of destinations, including higher education, apprenticeships or skilled employment. The removal of overlapping qualifications will give T-levels the space needed to flourish and maximise the number of learners on these important qualifications.

We published the provisional list of qualifications that overlap with waves 1 and 2 T-levels in May, and awarding organisations had eight weeks to appeal their qualifications’ inclusion on the list.

I can now confirm the final list of qualifications that will have funding approval removed at 16-19 because they overlap with the T-levels in Education and Childcare, Digital, and Construction and the Built Environment. These qualifications will have funding approval removed in August 2024.

As the outline content of the T-levels in the Health and Science route is currently being reviewed by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, this list does not include qualifications that overlap with these T-levels. Once the review has concluded, expected later this calendar year, we will confirm the final list of qualifications that overlap with these T-levels. Qualifications overlapping with these T-levels will have funding approval removed in 2024, at the same time as those overlapping with the other waves 1 and 2 T-levels.

This review has been led by evidence. We commissioned independent assessors to conduct in-depth reviews of the qualifications. All qualifications placed on the final overlap list were rigorously assessed and considered against three tests:

That they are technical qualifications;

That they have demonstrable overlap of content and outcomes with waves 1 and 2 T-levels already on offer; and

That they are aimed at supporting entry to the same occupation(s) as those T-levels.

We will run another process to identify qualifications that overlap with T-levels in the remaining T-level routes in 2023, and qualifications that overlap with these T-levels will have funding approval removed in 2025.

The next phase of the qualifications review will approve the qualifications that will sit alongside A-levels and T-levels in the new landscape. We are clear that other qualifications, including BTECs and similar qualifications, will continue to play an important role and we will fund these qualifications where they are high quality and where there is a clear need for them. We expect to publish details shortly of the process by which academic and technical qualifications at level 3 will be approved, and I will update Parliament on this.

October 18, 2022
Jeremy Hunt – 2022 Statement on Energy Markets Finance Scheme Contingent Liability

The statement made by Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2022.

It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000, and for which there is no statutory authority, for the Minister concerned:

To present a departmental minute to Parliament, giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and

To refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

I am writing to notify Parliament of a contingent liability that HM Treasury intends to create related to the energy markets finance scheme (EMFS) which is being delivered with the Bank of England and opens for applications today. This is a case of special urgency in which this liability will be incurred within 14 days of this minute being issued due to the extraordinary volatility of the energy market and need to deliver this scheme. The Treasury notified the Treasury Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee of this contingent liability when the then Chancellor confirmed this scheme as part of the growth plan on 23 September 2022. In parallel to laying a departmental minute, the Treasury has also written to these Committees to provide them with further details of the contingent liability.

As set out to Parliament in the plan for growth on 23 September 2022, the EMFS provides a 100% guarantee to commercial banks to provide additional lending to energy firms. This guarantee is provided by the Bank of England, which is in turn indemnified by HM Treasury. The scheme provides a backstop for energy firms facing large and unexpected margin calls due to price volatility in energy markets, ensuring they can continue to operate and manage risk in a cost-effective way and eventually reduce costs for businesses and consumers.

Margin calls can be large, with reports of them reaching multiple billions of pounds in some extreme cases. The facility will only support additional lending beyond what is commercially available to meet large margin calls. There is no cap on the facilities provided to firms due to the varying requirements of each firm, but a total size of the guarantee will be set for each firm as a part of the application process. Therefore, the total liability will depend on the take-up of the scheme and the specific circumstances of each applicant. However, any support provided will be on terms designed to protect the taxpayer.

The guarantees may only be provided to firms playing a material role in UK energy markets and they will need to evidence their exposure to margin calls. Firms will also have to comply with other eligibility criteria, including being UK based/having a UK presence, facing short-term liquidity requirements and being otherwise of sound financial health. When using the scheme, firms will also have to comply with a set of policy conditions, such as restrictions on the use of funds, executive pay, and capital distributions.

It is our intention that the EMFS is a scheme of last resort, to be used after existing commercial financing options are exhausted. This is reflected in the penal interest rate of the facilities, which will be significantly above market rate. As is standard practice for commercial lenders, an arrangement fee and commitment fee will be charged to firms, as well as an interest rate on drawn funds. Commercial banks delivering the scheme will not generate a commercial return which corresponds to remuneration for risk, given the Bank of England will wholly guarantee loans—but they will be allowed a commercial margin for admin costs incurred. The remainder of the proceeds of fees and interest on loans will flow back to the Exchequer.

The Government will only face losses from the scheme if the lending is not repaid. To reduce the risk of this happening, a rigorous application process has been set up. Firms will have to meet a minimum credit rating threshold of BB—and applications will be assessed initially by the Bank of England and then by an advisory committee (AC), which will make a recommendation for the Chancellor to decide whether to approve or reject an application. The scheme will therefore have a robust assessment of default risk and solvency, with due diligence provided by external and expert advisers.

The tenor of each facility agreement will last up to 12 months.

HM Treasury, supported by UK Government Investments, will be responsible for the management and monitoring of the scheme once launched. The Bank will report regularly on the progress of the scheme, as set out in its market notice. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

A departmental minute has been laid before the House of Commons.

October 18, 2022