The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-10-07.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what discussions he has had with President Xi at the September 2016 G20 meeting on separating the building of the Hualong One reactor at Bradwell from the agreement on Hinkley Point C.
Jesse Norman
My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy did not attend the September 2016 G20 meeting.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2015-12-02.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to paragraph 2.150 of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015, how many of the additional homes to be protected from flooding are classified as at (a) very high, (b) high, (c) moderate, (d) low and (e) very low risk of flooding; and what estimate she has made of the number of such homes that will be in each such category after the completion of work to protect them from flooding.
Rory Stewart
The £2.3 billion 6-year capital investment programme will better protect over 300,000 homes and will move around 170,000 households from either ‘very significant’ or ‘significant’ flood probability category to the ‘moderate’ or ‘low’ probability category.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-03-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether her Department has produced a cross-departmental strategy for the UK to implement the Sustainable Development Goals.
Mr Desmond Swayne
The UK Government as a whole is committed to implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Government’s manifesto sets out the plan of action for which it will be held accountable by the British people. This includes commitments relevant to each of the Goals, and it will guide our efforts to achieve them. The Global Goals are the starting point for, and will be embedded across, DFID’s work.
DFID is the lead Department on the Goals, and will be working with the Cabinet Office across Government to ensure a joined-up approach to implementation. Other Government Departments will lead on their respective policy areas.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-04-18.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether her Department has prepared contingency plans relating to interconnection with the continental electricity grid in the event of the UK voting to leave the EU.
Amber Rudd
At the February European Council, the Government negotiated a new settlement, giving the United Kingdom a special status in a reformed European Union. The Government’s position, as set out by my rt. hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the House on 22 February, is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU.
We currently expect our electricity interconnector capacity with Europe to double by the early 2020s with studies showing they could deliver benefits to British consumers of almost £12 billion over 25 years. As the White Paper that the Government published in February on the process for withdrawing from the European Union makes clear, a vote to leave the EU would lead to a prolonged period of uncertainty, including on the nature of our access to the EU’s single energy market.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-05-18.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, how the reforms to the Capacity Market announced on 6 May 2016 will provide investment incentives for new gas plants to be built in the UK.
Andrea Leadsom
The purpose of the Capacity Market is to ensure security of electricity supply by providing all forms of capacity the right incentives to be on the system to be prepared to deliver energy when needed. On 6 May we announced that we would buy more capacity and buy it earlier, enhancing the opportunities for new plant such as gas.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-06-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps his Department is taking to implement the recommendations in the first report of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, published in April 2016.
Anna Soubry
The Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) requires implementing countries to form a Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG) consisting of industry, civil society and government, who work in partnership to implement EITI. The MSG meets every 2 months with the next meeting on 12 July.
The UK MSG is currently reviewing the first year’s report and these recommendations form part of that review.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-09-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many officials of the Department for Energy and Climate Change have not transferred to work at his Department; and what the cost has been to date of redundancy payments to such staff resulting from the changes to the machinery of government.
Joseph Johnson
Following the appointment of my rt. Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 14 July 2016 all employees of the Department of Energy and Climate Change became part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on that date.
There have been no redundancies made since the 14 July as a result of the machinery of government change.
The speech made by Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 6 December 2022.
It is a pleasure to join in the debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for introducing it. I feel for her: about a decade ago I was in exactly the same position as a Back Bencher trying to tell my Front Bench team that they were mistaken in going down the biomass road. I think the Government are at the point where they will listen; indeed, I hope that is the case because, if they do not, it will make a mockery of all that we are doing on not only climate change but biodiversity.
I say that in the week that COP15—the Convention on Biological Diversity—is due to meet in Montreal. That is significant because the Drax power station is consuming whole trees from primary forests in British Columbia, in Canada. The Canadian Government should look at that carefully because we are talking not just about the case—ably made by the hon. Member for North Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)—for looking at what this practice is doing to increase emissions and at whether it can be sustainable in terms of the lifecycle of the trees, but about what it is doing to the wider environment and biodiversity. That is what is so terrifying.
The hon. Member for North Devon was right to speak about our inability to keep on using land in this way to feed a power station such as Drax. She spoke of an area 1.5 times the size of Wales; the figure I have is three times the size of Wales. Whatever it is, it is clear that this biomass cannot be sourced domestically, if this is to go on. More than that, it cannot be utilised because of the water resource required to produce the pellets for Drax.
The Department has been asked what the natural absorption rate of the emitted carbon would be if we replenish those lost resources—that is, if we replace those trees to absorb the emitted carbon. It gave an answer—it was, “We do not hold this information.” Well, other people have calculated it, and it is 190 years. We have seven years left until 2030, when the whole world must be on a declining pathway of emissions, and 27 years until 2050, when we have to achieve net zero. So the timescale—even accepting the principle that this is only about carbon emissions and that this is a cycle—is just too long.
The Government will no doubt talk about how CCS can be married up with BECCS. They will say that if we can capture those carbon emissions, that will make it all right. However, only 44% of emissions released at the Boundary Dam project in Canada were captured. The Government have not been prepared to say that they would hold Drax to what Ember, at least, has said should be the target—95% of emissions captured.
I want to focus on some of the key lies being told by Drax. I say that advisedly, because I have been to Drax and debated many times with its scientists. Over the years, I have tried to listen carefully to what they have said, and I have given them the benefit of the doubt on occasions. We need to transition away from biomass; I do not think we can simply stop it, and I am not saying that the contract should immediately be cut, but it is certainly not right for the Government to provide the £31 billion of additional subsidies entailed by what is now proposed over the lifetime of the project.
Drax says that its responsible sourcing policy means that it avoids damage or disturbance to primary and old-growth forest. That is not true, and the “Panorama” programme ably exposed the fact that it is not true. Drax said that many of the trees it had cut down had died and that logging would reduce the risk of wildfires, which shows just how little it knows about biodiversity, because many forests, particularly on the western seaboard of North America, require fire as a stimulant to the germination process. However, the fire spreads quickly; it does not kill the tree, but it does bring about new growth.
The trees on the entire area covered by the second Drax logging licence have now been cut down. It is simply not the case, as the company said, that the forests have been transferred to other logging licences. It said it does not hold those licences anymore. Again, that was a lie. “Panorama” checked that claim by going to the Government of British Colombia, who confirmed that Drax does still hold those licences. I understand how things progress, and I have no doubt that the company was set up to try to do good. We all thought at that stage that this was really going to be a sustainable way of tackling climate change, but Drax has got further and further into a reality that is now simply leading it to lie to the public. It is time that the Government distanced themselves from that lie.
The company says it uses some logs to make wood pellets, but it claims that it uses only ones that are small, twisted or rotten. I do not know whether Members have ever seen the process of gathering and taking logs from a forest. The idea that somebody is checking whether they are small, twisted or rotten and that only those are taken back to the power station is complete nonsense. However, when the logs get there, they can be sorted, and surveys at the pelletisation destinations show that only 11% of logs delivered to plants in the last year were classified as twisted, rotten or of the lowest quality, and could be used.
I am sorry the Government are now considering a further proposal from Drax. I really hope—not only for climate change purposes, but because of the wider biodiversity impact—that they will think very long and very hard, take notice of what the hon. Member for North Devon and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North have said today, and just say no. We have to transition away from burning trees. It is a damaging way of using forests, and it cannot be sustained.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2015-10-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what plans he has to remove the climate diplomacy function of his Department in response to the UNFCCC Paris COP 21.
James Duddridge
The Government takes the risk posed by climate change very seriously, and the UK remains a global leader on climate change action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris COP21 will aim to keep the goal of limiting global temperature rise to below 2 degrees within reach, but is not the end game. Whatever the outcome of COP21, the Government will continue to engage with international partners on climate policy issues, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will work closely with Department of Energy and Climate Change, Department for International Development and other relevant departments to this end.
Demonstrating the UK’s commitment to climate action, the Prime Minister announced at the UN General Assembly on 27 September that the government will provide a further £5.8 billion from the existing 0.7% official development assistance (ODA) budget to the UK’s International Climate Fund in the next spending round, between April 2016 and March 2021.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2014-04-03.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the individual total cost is of each of the biodiversity offsetting pilot schemes in (a) Devon, (b) Doncaster, (c) Essex, (d) Greater Norwich, (e) Nottinghamshire, (f) Warwickshire, (g) Coventry and (h) Solihull to date; and what the estimated total cost is of the schemes.
Dan Rogerson
This information is not held centrally. An evaluation of the pilots is being produced and will be published.