UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2022 Speech on Government Support for Marine Renewables

    Alistair Carmichael – 2022 Speech on Government Support for Marine Renewables

    The speech made by Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 7 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered Government support for marine renewables.

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and I am grateful to see a number of colleagues here this morning. I would like to place on record my appreciation, as ever, of the support that those of us who are part of the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy received in preparation for the debate, with very comprehensive briefings from RenewableUK, the UK Marine Energy Council and companies such as Orbital Marine Power and Nova Innovation.

    I want to start by giving credit to the Government for the decision they took last year to introduce a ringfenced pot of £20 million for tidal stream generation as part of the contracts for difference allocation round 4. In particular, I want to place on record that the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), in his time involved with the sector, understood the opportunities for the United Kingdom presented by its development and used his time in office to drive policy in a way that has empowered the sector to develop, grow and continue to innovate as it proceeds along the road to full commercialisation. I fully appreciate that when the biographers eventually come to write the chapter on the right hon. Member’s legacy, that may not be the headline, but it was a significant contribution that is understood and appreciated nevertheless.

    The Government’s decision last year unlocked investment in four projects this summer, as a result of which we will be able to obtain 41 MW of clean energy for United Kingdom households. Orbital Marine Power was awarded two contracts for difference totalling 7.2 MW of tidal energy deployments at the European Marine Energy Centre’s Fall of Warness site in Orkney. SIMEC Atlantis secured 28 MW to further develop the MeyGen site in Caithness, and in Wales, Magallanes was awarded 5.6 MW for a tidal energy project at Morlais in Anglesey.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    I was delighted to have the opportunity to visit the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney when I came to the right hon. Member’s constituency a couple of years ago. The work done at EMEC is really important for delivering cheaper, greener energy. Does he agree that, in the light of the energy price crisis, this research could be vital for delivering affordable energy to Scottish homes and businesses?

    Mr Carmichael

    I very much agree, and I should acknowledge the support that the hon. Lady has given to EMEC over the years. I am grateful for the support from across the political spectrum, all parties and none, and I will come on to talk quite a lot about EMEC later on.

    It is worth reflecting for a second on how we have reached this point. Despite the fact that these are significant commercial enterprises—essentially competitors—the companies working in the sector have presented a united and strategic case to Government and investors. That has been enormously important, and since we still have some way to go, I hope that approach will continue. Trade bodies RenewableUK and the UK Marine Energy Council have also been critical in maintaining that unity of purpose and message, as has, in our own small way, the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who I am delighted to see in his place.

    It is invidious to single out individuals when the story is one of team success, but the leadership that Neil Kermode has given as director of the European Marine Energy Centre in Stromness in Orkney has allowed that body to fulfil the role it was set up for almost 20 years ago. I do not think the Minister has yet visited EMEC, but he may wish to make his way there once we are through the winter and the days are slightly longer again, so that he can see for himself the work that has been done and continues to be done not just at EMEC but on the Heriot-Watt campus at the International Centre for Island Technology and the full range of private companies that have been established as spin-offs from these bodies.

    I mention EMEC, and am keen for the Minister to visit, not just to give it the recognition it has earned, but to engage the Minister’s attention in the issue of funding. EMEC’s success has been built on Interreg funding, which was a dependable source of funding for as long as long as we were part of the European Union; it was an easy fit. Since we left the European Union, however, the shape of future support that replaces what came through Interreg is still not clear, and for EMEC that could soon become critical. My first ask of the Minister, therefore, is whether he will meet me and a delegation from EMEC so that we may identify future sources of funding.

    The Government have now made a significant commitment to marine renewables through the fourth allocation round, and EMEC remains central to delivering the full potential of the Government’s commitment. That may be in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, or it may fall within the remit of the Scottish Government—perhaps it is some combination of them all—but having come so far we cannot now allow that critical operation to fall between the gaps of Government.

    I hope this morning’s debate will be an opportunity for us to stop and take stock of where we have got to, to explore some barriers that remain on the road to development and commercialisation, and to look forward to where we go from here—in particular, to what decisions we need to see made as we move towards the next round of contracts for difference allocation round 5.

    It is worth reminding ourselves what is at stake. The United Kingdom has the potential to develop about 1 GW of tidal stream energy by 2035 and up to 11.5 GW by 2050. That is equivalent to over three times the generation capacity of Hinkley Point C. The costs of technology have fallen significantly in recent years. Analysis published by the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult this autumn showed that that tidal stream can become not only a significant part of our future energy mix, but a cost-competitive one. If the sector is supported, by 2035 tidal stream could provide power at £78 per megawatt-hour; compare that to Hinkley Point C at £92.50 per megawatt-hour. By 2042 that figure could be £60 and by 2047 we could be looking at something in the region of £50. That is about £10 per megawatt-hour more than wind and solar today but, importantly, without the challenges of unpredictability.

    The real opportunity that comes from the development of tidal stream power in particular is the chance to develop the baseload capacity that will be so important and to remove the intermittency of renewables. For so long the missing link has been the funding that would give wave and tidal energy the chance to develop commercially, and, as we know from other renewable technologies, once the process of the commercial roll-out is under way, the costs fall like a stone.

    Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)

    I thank the right hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. He rightly makes the comparison with nuclear strike rates, but in doing so we should remember that the £92.50 strike price for Hinkley Point C is a 35-year contract, whereas tidal stream is a 15-year concession so it is even better value for money. Does he agree?

    Mr Carmichael

    That is a perfectly fair point. I make the comparisons, but I do not want to set one technology off against another; that is not in the interests of the industry. It is important that the figures are taken in the round when we look at getting value for money for the taxpayer.

    Marine renewables is an industry that has the potential to support thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom—good-quality manufacturing jobs that bring with them the opportunities to grow an export industry, which would be an obvious route towards a just transition for many of those currently working in oil and gas. The oil and gas industry has been a critical part of the economy of the Northern Isles for the last 40 years, and I believe it will be a critical part of getting to net zero. Indeed, it is difficult to see how we could get there without having an industry on the UK continental shelf. The industry has a number of excellent apprenticeship programmes. When I talk to the young men and women who are undertaking those apprenticeships now, at the start of their career, I am struck by the fact that they tell me they believe that by the end of their working lives they will be working not in oil and gas, but in marine renewables.

    David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)

    I congratulate the right hon. Member on introducing this important debate. I could almost have written his speech myself. Like other Members, I have had the pleasure of visiting his constituency and the European Marine Energy Centre, very impressive as it is, and I agree that the oil and gas sector and oil and gas companies, which have the technologies, the expertise and the capital, have a vital role to play in the energy transition.

    Mr Carmichael

    If the hon. Member wants to send me his CV, I will keep it on file for when I next have a vacancy for a speech writer. I am at risk of being too consensual, but he knows my views on this and we have to find a way to recognise that in energy security there is no silver bullet. Contributions will be made by all sectors on the journey towards net zero.

    The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult estimates that the UK’s tidal stream industry could support 4,000 jobs by 2030 and 14,500 by 2040. Those high-wage, high-value jobs would be focused on coastal areas. UK tidal stream projects use an average 80% UK content in the world-leading arrays, creating supply chain with high rates of return on public investment. As with offshore wind, the supply chain is widely dispersed across the UK—for example, Leask Marine is a vessel charter, commercial diving and international marine construction service based in Kirkwall, but it operates around the world.

    Being the world leader in developing tidal stream technologies, the UK is well placed to capitalise on exports to future global markets, including Canada and Japan, in which the sector has already secured export orders. Nova Innovation has a presence in Shetland, but, from its Edinburgh base, it is already working to export to Nova Scotia and Canada—part of a 15-turbine order.

    Marine energy provides a particularly competitive solution for countries with islands or remote populations that depend on expensive and polluting diesel generation. The energy innovation needs assessment of tidal stream, commissioned by the Minister’s Department, estimated that growth of UK tidal stream exports could add more than £540 million gross value added and nearly 5,000 jobs per annum by 2050.

    I hope the House will forgive me for labouring the point, but that is the potential that sits within our grasp. That is where we want to get to. The question, then, is how. The marine renewables sector has a number of clear and well-formed asks of the Government, one short term and three for the longer term. The most immediately important is the need for an early indication of the Government’s intentions with regard to the continuation of the ringfenced pot for tidal stream in their upcoming contracts for difference allocation round 5.

    The creation of that £20 million pot has been enormously important to unlocking private sector finance for the sector, and the sector itself has been able to be creative in the financial instruments it has devised to take advantage of that. Maintaining that investor confidence is critical, and an early and positive announcement on allocation round 5 is essential for that confidence. I would be delighted to hear something about that from the Minister today, although I am prepared to be realistic even though it is almost Christmas. However, an indication of when an announcement might be made would be welcome not just in the House, but in the wider industry.

    In the longer term, the industry is looking for contracts for difference options to be reformed in a way that rewarded projects with significant UK content, which would enable it to trigger new manufacturing investment or support innovation in the supply chain. It also seeks a commitment from the Government to a target of 1 GW of marine energy by 2035. Again, that would give confidence to investors that the UK intends to remain the leader in tidal stream.

    That 1 GW represents a significant threshold, because it is the point at which it is forecast that tidal stream is expected to become lower cost than new nuclear. The United Kingdom, Scottish and Welsh Governments should work together to expedite the process for new tidal stream sites to ensure development can continue at pace. Pace is important, and the Minister can use his office to work across Government and between Governments to remove some of the forces that are currently a drag on the pace of development.

    In its briefing for this debate, Nova Innovation called for the speeding up of CfD timescales and consent processing for tidal stream sites. Section 36 consent, which is required to qualify for a CfD, takes at least three years. That is driven by the requirement for two years of bird and mammal surveys and the nine-plus months it takes to receive a consent decision—it is often much longer in practice. In contrast, the EU target is three months for renewable energy project consent. Section 36 is required only for onshore projects greater than 50 MW, but the offshore limit is 1 MW.

    Overall, it takes at least six years from conception to the commissioning of a UK tidal energy site. That timeline is similar across the nations of the UK. In contrast, developers in Canada can go from a greenfield site to first power in two to three years. That puts the UK at a competitive disadvantage for project investment and we risk losing our lead in tidal energy. We should also increase the pace and scale of investment in the UK’s electricity grid so it does not remain a constraint on renewable energy development.

    EMEC provides state-of-the-art testing facilities for tidal stream and wave technologies. It plays a pivotal role in supporting the development of the UK’s marine energy sector. The UK leads the way in marine energy as a result of our innovative UK tidal and wave companies, our well-developed project portfolio and our excellent natural resources. EMEC’s activities have been made possible by the support it receives through EU structural funding—specifically funding from the EU Interreg programme. Between 2016 and 2020, that was £17.4 million.

    Interreg projects account for 51.9% of EMEC’s overall funding. Obviously, that funding will soon come to an end, so it is imperative that a clear replacement is established to secure its long-term future. The discontinuation of our participation in the EU Interreg programme has presented EMEC with a cliff edge in access to the grant funding supporting the operation and growth of the test centre.

    EMEC is taking proactive steps to mitigate the lost funding from Interreg, but—let’s be serious—it will not make good all the lost funds. Direct revenue funding of £1.5 million a year for four years to replace the Interreg gap will enable EMEC to preserve the high-quality jobs and the growth sector, supporting levelling up, protecting that internationally accredited and strategically located facility, and providing recognition as a national asset in pursuit of the UK’s aspirations to be a global research and development superpower. It will allow EMEC to enable further growth and diversification in new technology areas, including wave and tidal array testing, green hydrogen integration, maritime and aviation decarbonisation, and floating offshore wind research and innovation, all with the aim of developing the domestic supply chain and the manufacturing capability of UK plc as a whole in the pursuit of economic growth and reaching net zero.

    The replacement of Interreg funding is something of a lonely child when it comes to Government responsibility; it seems to sit between a number of departmental responsibilities. Although the response today is from BEIS, I am aware that the Levelling Up Secretary has an important role. He will be coming to Orkney in January for the final signing of the much-welcomed islands growth deal, and I look forward to raising Interreg with him then if we have not been able to make progress beforehand. Officials in the Minister’s Department have been fully apprised of the situation, so I hope we will be able to work together to ensure EMEC’s critical work is allowed to continue and that the cliff edge in the funding set-up can be avoided.

    The marine renewable sector’s asks are far from extravagant. This is the time to capitalise on the lead that the sector has given us as a country, commit to the policies that will expand our reach and make tidal stream innovation the icon of the UK economy that we know that it can be.

  • Maria Caulfield – 2022 Speech on Foetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder

    Maria Caulfield – 2022 Speech on Foetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder

    The speech made by Maria Caulfield, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 7 December 2022.

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this important debate on fatalities relating to foetal valproate spectrum disorder. We all know the devastating effect that the drug can have during pregnancy, which is why we took seriously the recommendation in Baroness Cumberlege’s report. I have met the campaigners, Janet and Emma, when I was previously a Minister and since being reappointed—I can confirm that they are definitely not blacklisted by the Department. I look forward to meeting them again shortly to hear the concerns that they still have, which my right hon. Friend set out well this evening.

    To reaffirm what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said, we all know that sodium valproate can be a highly effective drug that is used to manage and treat epilepsy as well as other disorders, such as bipolar disorder and migraines, often when many other medications do not work or have stopped working. It is absolutely right to say that if a woman is on sodium valproate, it is crucial that they do not stop that medication suddenly but discuss it with their GP.

    We know that there are teratogenic side effects that mean that, if taken during pregnancy, sodium valproate can have harmful effects on a foetus and increase the risk of a child being born with physical defects and neurodevelopmental disorders. In relation to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North about possible death, I do not know about that specific case but I am happy to ask officials to go away and look at it, because that would be an important development.

    The risk of birth defects following the use of sodium valproate is about 11%, but with a high maternal dose, the risk can increase to 24%. There are significant risks of taking that drug and effects on babies once they are born.

    Cat Smith

    I thank the Minister for the time that she makes available for the subject, which is much appreciated. While she is on the topic of the percentage risk of harm to the unborn baby, at that stage in pregnancy, many women and couples have a very much wanted pregnancy, which is perhaps planned for and longed for, but are suddenly advised by a doctor to terminate it. Does she agree that that tragedy needs to end? We need to come together to ensure that pregnancy prevention plans really work.

    Maria Caulfield

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and I will come on to some of the changes that are being made on that point. When I have met Janet and Emma, they have very much represented women who feel that those risks were not explained and that if they had known, they would have been on contraception or spoken to their team about stopping the medication before getting pregnant. Often, those are women with complex epilepsy for whom pregnancy is a difficult enough decision in the first place.

    We have known for a long time that the drug should not be used by any woman or girl who can have children, unless they are in the proper pregnancy prevention programme. That is why, in 2018, the programme was introduced to reduce and prevent the number of pregnancies, which was high at the time, in women taking the drug. Being part of the programme means that women are supposed to have an annual review by a specialist, but I have concerns and have heard from campaigners that that does not always happen and is not always the case. There is also the valproate registry, which has now been created so that we can track every woman who is taking that medicine and ensure that the records of when they are prescribed it, when it is dispensed and what is happening to them are followed through, which has never happened before.

    The programme is designed to make sure that, each year, those women have a discussion with their health team, so should they wish to become pregnant, they can get that advice there and then. When I was in this post previously, I had concerns about the overview of the register, the annual checks and some of the other safeguards around the dispensing and packaging of the drug, which have been touched on. That is why we have reviewed the programme.

    I have met the MHRA, which has taken both campaigners’ and my concerns very seriously. It is looking at the programme, and it will be making an announcement shortly on stronger advice to GPs, but also to pharmacists, about some of the technical issues with dispensing medication, and on some safeguards we need in place so that women—once again, whether they mean to get pregnant or happen to get pregnant—have the advice they need and the reminder on the packaging when they pick up their medication.

    The registry tracks all women in England who are taking the prescribed valproate, and it identifies if they become pregnant are accessing care for pregnancy. We can track pretty accurately when pregnancy happens, so we have a handle on how many women are getting pregnant while on the medication. I can reassure the House that the numbers are falling. They are still too high in my view, but they are falling. In the six-month period from April to September 2018 68 women prescribed valproate became pregnant, and from October 2021 to March 2022 that number fell to 17 women. That is still 17 women too many, although we are making progress in reducing that number of pregnancies, but that is why the MHRA is looking at further safeguards for prescribing and dispensing such medicine. It will be making that announcement fairly soon.

    A national clinical audit is being undertaken by all community pharmacy contractors, as agreed with NHS England and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, which will measure adherence to current MHRA regulations. The audit will look at whether all patients are provided with a patient card and a patient guide every time the medicine is dispensed. It will also look at whether patients who are supposed to be getting a review every 12 months actually are, and what then happens to them if they are being signposted for additional advice.

    I am appearing before the Health and Social Care Committee next week to go through the Cumberlege review on its anniversary and follow up on the progress that has been made. This week, I have met the new patient safety commissioner, Henrietta Hughes, who has also met Janet and Emma, and the issue of valproate is one of her key priorities in her first few weeks in post. I have discussed with her my concerns about its dispensing and packaging, and about the monitoring of women, including whether they are getting the advice they need for a planned pregnancy or, if they are not planning to get pregnant, whether they have had reliable advice and discussion about contraception. I plan to meet the patient safety commissioner on a regular basis to make sure that the measures in place are actually reducing the number of those pregnancies and providing women with the support and information they need.

    The Department and the MHRA are consulting on a proposal that medicines containing sodium valproate should always be dispensed in the original manufacturer’s packaging. This would ensure that patients, particularly women and girls of child-bearing age, always receive the patient information leaflet about the medicine they are taking. We will shortly publish a response to that consultation, and we will keep Members updated.

    To touch on the issue of redress, it was not one of the recommendations accepted in the original response to Baroness Cumberlege’s report. However, last year I was concerned about the issues, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North raised, for women seeking legal advice and taking on the huge challenge of getting compensation. What we have done as an interim measure is to work with NHS Resolution to launch a claims gateway, so that individual women can go to NHS Resolution and get their individual case looked at and be provided with support if they want to make a claim, without having to go independently to solicitors and lawyers. That has only just started, and we are looking at how effective it is in helping women get access to some of the compensation they feel they need. However, in my conversations with the patient safety commissioner I have asked her to look at what a potential redress scheme could look like. I am not going to make commitments on that from the Dispatch Box because it is not necessarily my decision to make—that would have to be in discussion with the Chancellor—but I am keen to look at what a redress scheme would look like, and I will follow up on that with the patient safety commissioner and see what is possible. I hope I have been able to reassure colleagues.

    Cat Smith

    Will the Minister commit on the Floor of the House this evening that after she has had conversations with the commissioner about the possibilities of the scheme she will talk to the Chancellor or someone from his team about the recommendations and how they might be implemented?

    Maria Caulfield

    I have had those discussions about what a scheme could look like with the patient safety commissioner only this week. I will need to see the details, but I hope that reassures the House that I am listening to the concerns of parliamentarians and campaigners such as Emma and Janet, who represent a huge number of affected women. I understand the situation they are facing: they have lifetime costs for their children through no fault of the women or the children. They took that medication not realising the effect it could have. We now have that information, but we did not know it at the time. My commitment is that I am exploring options and will update the House on that later.

    I want to reassure the House once again that we take very seriously the safety issues around this drug. It is an important drug in the management of epilepsy, and for some women it is the only way of managing their condition, but we need to make sure that women are aware of the implications of taking such a drug during pregnancy, that they are monitored annually to make sure those discussions are ongoing, and that every time their medicine is prescribed and dispensed that message is reinforced. We are reducing the numbers involved, which is great news, but we need to make sure they go even lower, and we need to look at how we support women who have been affected through no fault of their own.

    We will be giving evidence at the Health and Social Care Committee next week. I think I am also meeting the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood shortly, and I am sure other parliamentary colleagues too. I just want to say that I want to support women who have been affected by taking sodium valproate and that we are in listening mode on what more we can do to support them and make sure the help they need and the support for their children are at the forefront of our minds.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2022 Speech on Foetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder

    Caroline Nokes – 2022 Speech on Foetal Valproate Spectrum Disorder

    The speech made by Caroline Nokes, the Conservative MP for Romsey and Southampton North, in the House of Commons on 7 December 2022.

    I start by expressing my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. It is not the first time we have debated the issue of foetal valproate spectrum disorder in this House or in Westminster Hall, but this time we have added fatalities to the title of the debate. It is stark, and deliberately so, because this year for the first time a coroner has listed it as a contributing factor to a death.

    Jake Aldcroft was just 21 when he died in April this year after an infection triggered by problems with his kidneys. The coroner listed foetal valproate syndrome as a contributing factor to his death because of the physical damage done to Jake as an exposed baby, which meant that his bowel and bladder did not work properly and he relied on urostomy and colostomy bags. He had also suffered brain swelling that needed a drain. Jake did not experience pain in the normal way, which would have triggered the alarm sooner. That meant that when he arrived at hospital he collapsed and deteriorated quickly. His mum, Sharon Aldcroft, has been clear that she was never warned about the dangers of valproate when she took it while pregnant with Jake, who was diagnosed with FVSD as a baby.

    Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)

    I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this important topic. The fact that the warnings are still not being displayed on pharmacy prescriptions is truly shocking and needs to be corrected. Does she agree that if there is one clear message we can send from this House, it is that doctors and chemists need to be doing what they should be doing and warning any patient of the risks of this drug?

    Caroline Nokes

    Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. One of the serious issues to do with sodium valproate has been the lack of warning and information provided to women of child-bearing age.

    I have highlighted Jake’s case, with the permission of his mum, because it gives a stark description of some of the very severe problems FVSD can cause for affected babies, and because, as far as I know, it is the first time that it has been listed as a contributory factor to a death. But the horror for many families is that they have to do everything they can to avoid infection and to manage really complex and difficult conditions because they know that, like Jake, their children are vulnerable and could, ultimately, also lose their lives to this totally avoidable syndrome.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the right hon. Lady. She takes part in many of the same debates as me, when we often stand together, and we stand together in this one as well. Does she not agree that the fact that up to 20,000 births have been affected by the drug means that we have waited an awfully long time to react to the dangers in pregnancy? That is the terrible lesson that so many have suffered, and it reinforces the fact that we must act on the side of caution and, what is more, admit our mistakes and appropriately compensate those living with the effects of that negligence.

    Caroline Nokes

    I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I remember being in this Chamber when a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister made a full apology in line with the recommendations of the Cumberlege report. Unfortunately, not all of that report’s recommendations have been implemented for some issues, which I will move on to shortly.

    I know that I do not have to rehearse this with the Minister because she has been there—and indeed in Westminster Hall—when we have debated this issue before. There have been many debates, statements and urgent questions on this issue and on the related matters of vaginal mesh and hormone pregnancy testing, but this is the first time the syndrome has been found by a coroner to have contributed to a young person’s death—a child’s death.

    As the Minister will know, foetal anti-convulsant syndrome is a serious condition in which a baby suffers physical and/or developmental disability from his or her mother taking sodium valproate. Those disabilities can vary and will include minor and major malformations ranging from deformities just of fingers and toes to major physical disabilities such as spina bifida, malformed limbs, skull and facial malformations and malformations of the internal organs.

    Christian Wakeford

    I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way a second time. We have also recently heard that foetal valproate syndrome can be passed down the generations, so the very unfortunate victim of that awful illness can pass it on to their children as well. Although that has been confirmed only recently, we need to ensure that people are warned about the knock-on effects. Up until probably a couple of weeks ago, no one really knew about that.

    Caroline Nokes

    The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The illness can continue down the generations, and that is not yet well understood but it is causing real fear for the families who have been affected so far.

    Additionally, problems can include learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, delayed walking and talking, speech and language difficulties, and memory problems. It is a long list, and it has now been listed as directly attributing to the death of a young person.

    Way back in 2018, the Government commissioned the independent medicines and medical devices review, chaired by the noble Baroness Cumberlege, and its “First Do No Harm” report was published in 2020. That excellent piece of work had nine significant recommendations, some of which have been implemented, some of which have not—or not effectively. As the noble Baroness pointed out, many thousands of women of child-bearing age who suffer from epilepsy are still being prescribed sodium valproate.

    Since 2018, when the pregnancy prevention programme was introduced, only 7,900 women are believed to have switched from valproate, which means that today approximately 20,000 women taking valproate are at risk of becoming pregnant. Information from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency indicates that of those 20,000 women, roughly one in three will have a pregnancy. That means that about 400 pregnant women a year have been exposed to valproate and that, of those 400 pregnancies, about one in two will have a child affected to some extent by foetal valproate syndrome.

    Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)

    I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate on such an important issue. She is touching on the issue of women currently taking sodium valproate when they are of child-bearing age and the number of pregnancies we are still seeing. While more needs to be done with GPs to ensure that these women understand the risks and that there are pregnancy prevention plans, does she agree that it is important to say that any women listening to our debate this evening should keep taking their medication until they have had that conversation with a GP, because sodium valproate is also a lifesaving drug?

    Caroline Nokes

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I will come on to say that none of us is advocating that valproate be banned.

    7.00pm
    Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Robert Largan.)

    Caroline Nokes

    I will go on to say how important valproate is and how it is imperative that women keep taking the medication, but they need to do so in collaboration with their GP and in discussion with consultants —they need to do so being aware of the risks.

    According to the MHRA’s chief safety officer, around three babies are being born every month having been exposed to valproate in pregnancy, although The Sunday Times has estimated the numbers to be double that, at six per month. I pay particular tribute to The Sunday Times, which has worked alongside families and campaigners, such as the Independent Fetal Anti-Convulsant Trust, or INFACT, to make sure that this scandal does not get brushed to one side and forgotten about.

    As the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) indicated, new information suggests that valproate will affect their children too. Those mothers who already feel a sense of guilt that their medication has harmed their children now live in fear that it will impact their grandchildren too. Put simply, it is a health disaster that is not going to go away.

    Alongside other Members, I recognise the importance of sodium valproate as a drug to control epilepsy. It is crucial for some patients where other drugs have proven ineffective. At no point have I, or the APPG that I co-chair with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), or INFACT called for it to be withdrawn, but the controls have to be more effective. We have to do better with the pregnancy prevention programme, and we have to do better at providing the necessary information to women of child-bearing age.

    The pregnancy prevention programme is just not working adequately. Information to women is not getting through. Drugs are still being dispensed in plain packaging, without the required warning notices. Many women are still highlighting through the media, through campaign groups and to their Members of Parliament that they were not warned, that they have become pregnant and then, only at that point, have they been told of the possible danger to their baby and advised to have an abortion. First-time mums excited at finding they are pregnant are advised to have an abortion. I know that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), will find that abhorrent.

    There are drugs for other conditions where I have seen far more radical and determined pregnancy prevention programmes. I have previously identified Roaccutane, where women prescribed it have to have long-acting contraception and produce a negative pregnancy test before they can collect a monthly prescription, not to mention sit with a consultant and go through a very detailed explanation of foetal abnormalities and be given a form to sign stating they will have a termination if they get pregnant. That might sound draconian in the case of valproate, but it would at least mean that every woman prescribed the drug would have had the risks spelled out very clearly.

    For thousands of families, the damage has been done. At this point, I pay tribute to Emma Murphy and Janet Williams of the INFACT campaign group, who are the women who have kept up the pressure on Government. They are the ones who have kept digging for information on what was known by the authorities and how long ago. They are the ones who persuaded my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, to launch an inquiry into the use of sodium valproate, which The Sunday Times has described as a scandal bigger than thalidomide. Why is it a scandal bigger than thalidomide? Because it is still happening. Those babies are still being born to parents who have simply not had the level of warning and practical prevention measures that they need.

    That brings me to redress and recommendation 4 of “First Do No Harm”. I know that successive Ministers have decided that redress should come via the courts and medical negligence claims, but I would like us all to reflect a little on that and the added strain it puts on families already caring for a disabled child or, in some cases, children—children who we now know can have their death caused by foetal valproate syndrome.

    We know that the costs of caring for a disabled child are high. We know that in this cost of living crisis the energy costs for any family living with a disabled child will be higher. We know that in terms of physical effort and mental anxiety it is simply harder to look after a disabled child. We also know, unequivocally, that the dangers of valproate were known the best part of 50 years ago, so it is especially tough and insensitive to suggest to those same families that redress should be via a courts system that is itself under immense strain and subject to delays.

    The noble Baroness recommended in her review not only that an independent redress agency be set up, but that there be separate schemes for the three medicines or devices covered. Specifically, recommendation 4 states:

    “Separate schemes should be set up for each intervention—HPTs, valproate and pelvic mesh—to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those who have experienced avoidable harm and are eligible to claim.”

    To my mind, the specific relevance here is around the additional care needed, which we all acknowledge, and the bare fact of avoidable harm.

    I have three asks of the Minister, and I look forward to her response. The first is for an acknowledgement that sodium valproate has contributed to a death. A young person has died avoidably, and we need the Government to reflect on the very serious conditions that too many babies were exposed to the risk of. What additional controls does she think should be put in place in the light of the knowledge that valproate has caused a young man to lose his life?

    Secondly, the pregnancy prevention programme needs to be more effective. Some 200 babies are at risk every year. Is the Minister satisfied that the programme is adequately effective and that the information is properly communicated to women of child-bearing age? If not, what more is she planning to do?

    Finally, we need redress. Back in 2019, the disability equality charity Scope reported that a family with disabled children faces average extra costs of £581 a month. That was three years ago. Fuel inflation and food price inflation have increased since then, and the stark reality is that families with disabled children are struggling. These children were, in the words of the “First Do No Harm” report, “avoidably harmed”. It is no sort of redress to suggest that those struggling families resort to the courts.

    My suggestion to the Minister, who I believe is dedicated to her job, works extremely hard and can be very persuasive, is the following.

    Christian Wakeford

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    Caroline Nokes

    I will, one final time.

    Christian Wakeford

    I thank the right hon. Member for giving way a third time. As we know, both Emma and Janet have unfortunately been blacklisted by the Department of Health and Social Care, so if I could be so bold as to suggest another recommendation, it would be that they are never blacklisted again, to ensure that their voices are listened to, and the voices of those children and mothers are constantly heard.

    Caroline Nokes

    The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I am absolutely confident that the Minister will be very pleased to meet both Janet and Emma. I look forward to her agreeing to do so from the Dispatch Box.

    My final point to the Minister is this: the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, was incredibly active on this issue. He launched the inquiry when he was still the Chair. His successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), is equally committed and is continuing with the inquiry, and both Janet Williams and Emma Murphy will give evidence to the Committee next week. I would like the Minister to use her powers of persuasion and ability to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he needs to keep going on this issue. He is now in a position where he could put in place the finances to allow a redress scheme to be set up. I urge her to persuade him to do just that.

  • Robbie Moore – 2022 Speech on Local Authority Boundaries

    Robbie Moore – 2022 Speech on Local Authority Boundaries

    The speech made by Robbie Moore, the Conservative MP for Keighley, in the House of Commons on 7 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about changing local authority boundaries in cases where there is public support for such changes; and for connected purposes.

    Local representation matters. Individuals and communities need to have trust in their local authority, which is charged with acting in their best interest, regardless of which political party may be in charge at a local level. Residents need to be reassured that the framework, the model, the structure and, indeed, the geographical area represented mean that the local authority has the capacity and the capability of acting in their best interest.

    My Local Authority Boundaries Bill aims to re-empower local communities that feel completely disenfranchised and forgotten about by their local authority. Let us not forget that local authorities have perhaps one of the most important influences on an individual or a family’s day-to-day life than any other level of government. Whether it be sorting out highways and potholes, putting in speeding cameras, dealing with local planning policy, housing, schools, children’s services, adult services, bin collection, leisure centres, libraries and regeneration, and driving local economic growth, local authorities are incredibly important. As organisations, they must represent the entire geographical area encompassed by their boundaries, and, most importantly, deliver for local communities based on their local priorities.

    In my view, if a local authority is too large in terms of the number of residents it represents, its geographical area is too great, or a single city is getting all the attention from the local authority, with the outlying towns and villages being deprioritised, then there is a risk that communities will suffer. The sense of place is lost and people become disenfranchised or even completely forgotten about. At a local level, that is the very challenge that I face.

    I represent perhaps one of the most important and beautiful parts of the United Kingdom. Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, Steeton, Riddlesden, East Morton, the Worth Valley and the areas in my wider constituency are full of passionate people who, quite rightly, are incredibly proud of where they live. For too long, though, the area I represent has felt completely unrepresented and ignored by our local authority, Bradford Council.

    Constituents in Keighley and Ilkley, and indeed in Shipley and Bingley, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), are fed up of living in the shadow of Bradford, getting a rough deal and having to put up with the incompetence and poor service provision from our local authority. This Bill aims to change this disconnect by giving local communities such as mine the option to have their say on refocusing and realigning local authorities to be local, and to deal with and deliver on local priorities.

    The mechanics of my Bill are simple: they place a requirement on the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to lay regulations that would enable two or more parliamentary constituency areas, such as Keighley and Ilkley, and Shipley, to form a new local authority if, when combined, they form a continuous area. Quite rightly, as part of that process, public will and deep local support would need to be evidenced, so this Bill sets out the mechanisms for a referendum to be held. A petitioning system will be created to enable electors in any constituency area to indicate their support for a referendum to be held on the creation of a new local authority. If 10% or more of the people in that constituency area give their support for a referendum, a vote will be held among the electors within those community and constituency areas.

    After the referendum is held, if the majority of those people have signalled that they want a new council to better represent them, the mechanics of setting up a new local authority will be triggered. Of course, as part of the process, it would be necessary to present a strong indication that the new and residual local authorities would be organisationally and financially viable and capable of effectively delivering services to local residents.

    Let me outline why this Bill is so important to me and my constituents. A root cause of many of the problems is that my constituents feel that they are being used as a cash cow for Bradford and getting very little back in return. Council tax and business rates are all sent from my constituency to Bradford City Hall, with nowhere near the equivalent amount of funds comes back to be reinvested in our area. The Keighley and Ilkley and Shipley constituencies generate the highest tax revenue to Bradford Council through our council tax and business rates payments. Data released by our council finds that wards such as Ilkley, Wharfedale and Craven pay the highest proportion of what is billed, while other wards within Bradford city itself pay the least and yet get the highest investment. Even though the two constituencies are the largest contributors, we undoubtedly benefit the least; cash is funnelled into Bradford city centre projects by my constituents, who are getting no benefit whatsoever.

    Hon. Members should be in no doubt that we have some huge challenges in Keighley, with deprived areas that need attention, and we need more local support from our local authority. I am talking about the local authority simply doing the basic job of providing statutory services well—getting projects off the ground while listening and taking account of local priorities.

    I will give some very quick examples. Bradford Council is still yet to deliver the Silsden to Steeton pedestrian bridge, despite money having being allocated for it by this Conservative Government. Bradford Council has delayed and delayed the project and now says it will not be delivered until 2026. The council’s recent decision to ignore a decisive public poll to keep the green space on North Street in Keighley Green and to push ahead with its development plans is contrary to what the people of Keighley want.

    Children’s services are in a dire state in Bradford. Across the district there are some exceptional problems that mark my area out from the rest of the country. Children’s services are perhaps the most important service that a local authority can provide, but Bradford Council children’s services have failed vulnerable children for far too long. At the start of this year, we heard a damning Government report on those services, which only went to show what we have all known for a long time: children in our district are not protected by those with the responsibility to do so, leading to some tragic circumstances throughout our area. I am pleased to say that earlier this year the Government stepped in and stripped Bradford Council of its children’s services so that a new trust structure can be set up. Those are just a few examples.

    In summary, this Bill would put new measures in place to ensure that local people have a say on who represents them, the very nature of the council and the geographical area in which the services will be delivered. It is only right that, if the majority of people in specific constituencies are in favour of forming a new unitary authority, they should have the opportunity to do so. Not only would that benefit my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley, but it would be very much welcomed by other Members of this place.

    Some may say that the Bill is divisive, but that is not the case at all. It is simply standing up for the community that I represent, and putting in place a plan that enables communities to be better represented at a local level, with the sole purpose of delivering on local priorities—something that, unfortunately, under the shackles of Bradford Council, my constituents have not benefited from for far too long. While I may refer to this Bill as the “Bradford breakaway Bill”, my Local Authority Boundaries Bill provides the mechanics for a smaller, more targeted, more nimble, more effective and more efficient local authority, able to deliver on local services and local priorities at speed and with a much better sense of public duty to its residents.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered.

    That Robbie Moore, Philip Davies, James Grundy, Mr William Wragg, Damien Moore, Antony Higginbotham, Matt Vickers, Duncan Baker, Chris Clarkson, Dr Kieran Mullan and Sarah Atherton present the Bill.

    Robbie Moore accordingly presented the Bill.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the Summit of Southern European Union Countries

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the Summit of Southern European Union Countries

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 9 December 2022.

    Dear Pedro,

    Cher Emmanuel,

    Dear António,

    Let me first of all thank you, Pedro, for welcoming us here today to talk about this very important project. Hydrogen is a game changer for Europe. This is why, already in June 2020, we started with the Hydrogen Strategy. We want to make hydrogen a central part of our energy system in the transition to climate neutrality, to net zero. And we want to maintain our European trailblazer’s position, as we build a global market for hydrogen.

    Our Strategy includes ambitious production targets, but not only. What we have set out is a vision for the full-scale industrial deployment of hydrogen. We turned this vision into reality by creating a European Clean Hydrogen Alliance. A real hydrogen ecosystem along the entire value chain. At the core of our efforts lies the crucial issue of transmission and distribution.

    In 2020, we identified the need for the major hydrogen corridors to make the hydrogen flow to where it is needed. Then we saw the start of the Russian energy war, with severe knock-on effects on our energy systems and our energy markets. And this made the clean energy transition not only pressing but vital. It is not only good for the climate but also important for our independence and the security of supply. So we needed to accelerate the deployment of renewables and hydrogen. And we introduced REPowerEU. REPowerEU is our plan to speed up the deployment of renewables. And of course, hydrogen will play a major role. What are our goals? We want to produce 10 million tonnes of renewable hydrogen in the European Union by 2030. And we also plan to import in addition another 10 million tonnes. This hydrogen will have to reach our industry. This is why we also identified a series of strategic corridors that we need to transport the hydrogen. This includes one crossing Europe, from the West to the East, via the Iberian Peninsula.

    This is why today, I warmly welcome this agreement between France, Spain and Portugal. Because your H2Med project goes absolutely in the right direction. It has the potential to help us build a real European hydrogen backbone. I welcome your imminent application to make it a project of common interest. This would make it eligible to apply for EU financial support.

    Dear Pedro,

    Dear António,

    Cher Emmanuel,

    The Iberian Peninsula is set to become one of Europe’s major energy hubs. And the European Union will be part of this success story. We have always been at your side. We have co-funded the Biscay Gulf interconnector. We have supported the trans-Pyrenean crossings; the electricity interconnector between Spain and Portugal. Today, the Iberian Peninsula is becoming a major European energy gateway to the world. A hydrogen corridor via the Peninsula can also link up with hydrogen supply from the entire Mediterranean region. This is what we are also working on. We are establishing hydrogen partnerships with the Mediterranean countries – we have one with Egypt already, we are now discussing one with Morocco. And we are working on a broader Green Hydrogen Partnership with all Southern Mediterranean countries. So this is only the beginning. But it is a very promising beginning.

    Thank you.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the EU-Western Balkans Summit

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the EU-Western Balkans Summit

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 6 December 2022.

    Dear Edi,

    It is a fantastic experience to be here, and you are outstanding hosts. We will, I think, never forget this family photo and this fantastic performance – tradition, classics and the future, the modern part. It was outstanding, it was amazing to see that. And thank you very much for your words. Let me reassure you that our support for the region really comes from the bottom of our hearts. Because we are deeply convinced that we belong together. You have said that you would, as host, be willing to give your life for us. We do not want your life; we want to live our lives together. And thank you very much for this outstanding Summit. It was a Summit where there was a very clear message of unity. We want to tackle the issues, the problems, the challenges we have together. It was a Summit of partnership with very deep, very good, frank and trustful discussion.

    And of course, we have touched upon many topics. I want to highlight a few. A big topic is of course that we want to tackle together the difficulties, the knock-on effects of this atrocious war that Russia has unleashed. And one of the main topics is of course energy. For us is important that, with our friends from the Western Balkans, we address this energy crisis together to mirror whatever we do in the European Union also in the Western Balkans. For example, the fact that households and businesses struggle as much in the Western Balkans as in the European Union. For us is important to give similar solutions. Therefore, we announced this EUR-1-billion of energy support, which is split in two parts: It is EUR 500 million of direct budget support, which gives the opportunity to support in a targeted manner the vulnerable households and the vulnerable businesses.

    And the second half, EUR 500 million, in infrastructure to make sure that we have the investment already in the energy of the future. The energy of the future is of course renewable energy. Renewable energy is cheaper; it is affordable; it is cleaner; it is better for our planet; and it is home-grown. It provides good jobs here at home, so it gives independence and security of supply. The investment of these EUR 500 million will of course go in renewables, in interconnections, so infrastructure, but also energy efficiency. Yesterday, we have approved six different projects. It goes from large-scale photovoltaic plants to solar district heating; from wind farms to the rehabilitation of hydropower plants, just to give you an idea about that. Of course, a strong emphasis is also on energy efficiency, so to improve, through additional investment, the situation of hospitals, schools and universities from an energy efficiency standpoint.

    Beyond energy, of course this is a part, is the bigger frame of the Economic and Investment Plan – you are all familiar with it –, with investments in transport, in water, in wastewater management, in digital smart labs, just to name a few. Here too, we have just adopted yesterday 40 flagship projects worth EUR 1.8 billion. The good news is also that this Economic and Investment Plan is on track.

    My second point looks at the situation that we have overall in the relationship between the Western Balkans and the European Union. And let me reassure you that we are wholeheartedly supporting the enlargement process and the regional integration. This year has seen a lot of progress. We have had indeed the first Intergovernmental Conference with Albania and North Macedonia. There is finally new movement and momentum in the whole process. It was a historic step to open the accession negotiations. And now, the screening has started and the momentum is there. We, as the Commission, recommend granting candidate status to Bosnia and Herzegovina on the understanding that a number of steps are taken. We are now very much looking forward to a decision to be taken by the Council.

    Besides this progress that we see, there is of course the important topic of the economic integration, so the common regional market. I really want to commend you for the progress that you have done in the common regional market in the last months. It is very good for the region that you have signed agreements that underline the importance of the freedom to travel, to study or to work. It makes trade easier in the region, it creates new jobs. So all these are topics that are moving forward and that highlighted the importance of this Summit to give them speed and acceleration.

    A third point that we discussed today was migration. Migration has long been a shared challenge. We have a strong, common interest in cooperating closely on all aspects. It is a question of managing migration together. Therefore, the Commission has yesterday presented an Action Plan on the Western Balkans to strengthen our mutual cooperation. On that, it is important for me to convey again the message: You can count on our support to deal with border management and to deal with the migration and asylum process. We are in this together and we have to manage that topic together. It is crucial for us to move forward here. At the same time, we expect all our Western Balkan partners to align swiftly with our visa policy. This is also crucial to maintain the visa-free regimes between us. Because it is a question of mutual respect of the rules.

    And indeed, finally, I also want to emphasise the topics concerning youth. I know, Edi, how important youth is to you. You were the one who first mentioned to me that you wanted more opportunities for young people to be created in the region. And you were the one who asked us to think about the possibility to open the European Universities initiative to all Western Balkan countries. Today, we can say that we delivered. Thank you very much for starting this process. The Western Balkan universities will be able to join the European Universities network. This means that it enables students from the Western Balkans not only to study physically in the different universities of Europe but also to have full access to the European universities remotely here in Tirana. And in that is your vision to have one day the College of Europe here, like in Bruges, like in Poland. And indeed, you have full support also from my side. This is something on which I hope that in due time, at one of the next summits, we will be able to say that we delivered.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the College of Europe in Bruges

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the College of Europe in Bruges

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 4 December 2022.

    Dear students of the Sassoli promotion,

    Dear young diplomats,

    Dear Federica,

    Thank you so much for inviting me. And let me thank you also for what you are doing here in Bruges. When we first met – you were the High Representative, I was the German Defence Minister – there was something that struck me about you. Besides the day-to-day crisis management, you always tried to focus on long-term, strategic thinking. You always thought that Europe needed a common strategic culture, and that is why you came up with the idea of a global strategy. It was a process to help a European strategic thinking emerge and it led to very practical steps towards a common European defence. Now you are doing the same here in Bruges, with young men and women from across Europe and with young diplomats from all Member States and beyond. And I want to start by congratulating you, and all participants in this pilot of the European Diplomatic Academy. You are the future of European foreign policy.

    And we need that strategic thinking more than ever. Because difficult times lead to difficult questions. What is Europe’s strategic goal? What should our economy look like in the 2030s, and beyond? What is our growth strategy? What are the challenges to address in the short, mid and long term? The one common feature in answering all of those questions is without any doubt climate change. Its consequences will come in all shapes and forms. It is the most existential issue we all face. This is why Europe has a clear roadmap for this challenge. It is called the European Green Deal – and it is our growth strategy. And when we set off, we knew that the road would not always be smooth. That as the global setting around us constantly changed, we would have to constantly adapt to stay the course. But we did not know just how bumpy it would be. We had a pandemic with after-shocks that are still being felt around the world. Russia has unleashed an unprovoked, unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. The spill-over effects are global – from energy security to redrawing global diplomacy. And in parallel, we are now confronted with an intensifying global clean tech race. In tackling all these new challenges, we always have to keep in mind the direction of our travel. It is towards a thriving, clean and competitive European economy. This is what I would like to talk about today.

    And to do that I would first like to zoom out for a moment, and bring you back in time by a few years. Exactly three years ago, we launched the European Green Deal. It was the very beginning of my mandate as President of the European Commission. And we decided that our first priority would be to decarbonise and digitalise the European economy. I called it our ‘man on the Moon’ moment. And it really was a moon-shot. We were the first global power to set a path toward net-zero emissions and to make it legally binding. We had in the US an administration in place that did not believe that humans caused climate change and announced to pull out of the Paris agreement. China was investing heavily in coal. And Europe emerged as a global front-runner. We said: Let us not wait to do what is right. Let us invest today in the clean technologies of tomorrow. Because eventually, all advanced and emerging economies will embark on the same journey.

    And we have stayed the course ever since. This has given certainty to industry and investors on the direction of travel. We have cast our goals into our first ever Climate Law. When the pandemic hit, we created NextGenerationEU not only to power the recovery but also, to accelerate digitalisation and the European Green Deal. Almost half of NextGenerationEU contributes to our wider climate objectives. We developed the legal framework to cut emissions by at least 55% by 2030. And in parallel, we have worked with industry in strategic fields, from joint European projects on batteries or hydrogen, to the European Chips Act. Europe has become the global hub of investment for clean tech and decarbonisation.

    If you fast forward to today, there is some positive news. Europe is no longer alone in the fight against climate change. When President Biden came into office, one of his first decisions was to re-join the Paris agreement. Now the US has taken the next step and passed the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The IRA – as it is called – is an investment plan of roughly USD 369 billion to build up a new industrial ecosystem in strategic clean energy sectors. There is a striking symmetry between the Inflation Reduction Act and the European Green Deal. Both of them are simultaneously a climate strategy, and a strategy for investment and growth. Both of them include funding for a just transition, and both include regulatory standards. The two biggest and most advanced economies in the world are now moving in the same direction. The US relies on investment and regulatory standards – while the EU relies on a combination of investment and regulatory standards – and carbon pricing. Two continent-sized powers are modernising their economies by investing close to EUR 1 trillion and addressing together the biggest challenge of our times. And this is so important. It is not only a positive signal for the planet, but also for global investors.

    Yet, the Inflation Reduction Act is also raising concerns here in Europe, against a very particular backdrop for our industry and economy. First, COVID-19 has exacerbated bottlenecks in many critical supply chains. The European industry has been carefully trying to fix the weak links of these chains, and make them more resilient, but this has come at a cost. Second, global energy supply is tight because of Russia’s war of aggression. Russia has cut 80% of its pipeline-gas supply to Europe in only eight months. But we have been able to compensate. Something that is truly remarkable, and that many deemed impossible. There have not only been no blackouts in Europe, but we also managed to fill our gas storages by roughly 96%. We are safe for the winter. But this comes at the cost of higher energy prices. And all of this affects the competitiveness of many European industries – especially energy intensive sectors of our economy.

    It is against this backdrop that the Inflation Reduction Act has received so much additional scrutiny in Europe, but also in the rest of the world. There is a risk that the IRA can lead to unfair competition, could close markets, and fragment the very same critical supply chains that have already been tested by COVID-19. We need to look at these issues closely – and at the same time learn what we could also do better. And in doing so, we need to look at three aspects that are particularly challenging: First, the ‘Buy American’ logic that underpins part of the IRA. Second, tax breaks that could lead to discrimination. And third, production subsidies that could lead to a subsidies race. It sounds technical, but it is easier to understand with an example. If you are a consumer in the United States, you get a tax break when you buy electric vehicles, EVs, if they were manufactured in North America. And if you are a battery producer for those same electric vehicles, you get a tax break if you produce in the US. This means that a car manufacturer gets a double benefit for producing in North America and buying parts in the US. What is more, this could also attract critical components and raw materials towards the US, and away from transatlantic supply chains. This creates of course an attractive investment environment on clean tech in the US. But we already see how this could also affect Europe’s own clean tech base by redirecting investment flows. We have all heard the stories of producers that are considering to relocate future investment from Europe to the US.

    Now, let me be clear: competition is good. It drives innovation, enhances efficiency and ensures progress. And in doing so it brings down prices for clean technologies. Competition between Europe and the United States can push both our industries to excel, to innovate, and to transform faster. This is why I believe in the need to invest into two clean energy industrial bases on both sides of the Atlantic. Not only will we create the well-paid jobs of the future both in Europe and in the US, we will also drive down costs for clean energy technologies globally. Together, we can make clean energy more affordable worldwide. And by doing so, we will also help decarbonise other economies, and drive a just transition. But: this competition must respect a level-playing field. That is why it is so critical, that the technology competition between the EU and the US is a race to the top for our industries on both sides of the Atlantic. And I am confident that Europe is in a strong position, to compete on global markets and develop the clean technologies of tomorrow.

    But will this be enough to keep up in the clean tech race? And to strengthen our industrial base do we need to do more to accelerate the transition? Yes, if we are competing on a level playing field. But we must also take action to rebalance the playing field where the IRA or other measures create distortions. In other words: We need to do our homework in Europe and at the same time work with the US to mitigate competitive disadvantages. I see three main ways to do so. First, we have to adjust our own rules to facilitate public investments into the transition. Second, we have to re-assess the need for further European funding of the transition. Third, we have to work with the United States to address some of the most concerning aspects of the law.

    To my first point. We have to adjust our own rules to make it easier for public investments to power the transition. State aid is a tried and tested tool here in Europe to incentivise business activities for the public interest. Last summer, for instance, we approved EUR 5.4 billion in state aid for the hydrogen value chain, under one of our IPCEIs. These public investments will benefit 35 companies from 15 Member States, from Portugal to Denmark, from Finland to Italy. They will help bring new technologies from the laboratory to the factory, for hydrogen production, for storage and for hydrogen-powered trucks, trains and ships. It is one of many examples of our state aid policy at the service of clean tech.

    Yet, the Inflation Reduction Act should make us reflect on how we can improve our state aid frameworks, and adapt them to a new global environment. First, we must look at how we can make our frameworks more predictable and simple. Europe has built a very sophisticated system. But businesses today want simple and predictable rules. We have built a very precise system. But businesses today want state aid rules to be predictable, above all. We are very careful to avoid distortions in our Single Market. But we must also be responsive to the increasing global competition on clean tech. If you look at the IRA, it invests right along the value chain in some strategic sectors. But this is not always the case for our state aid. Our Important Projects of Common European, IPCEIs, for instance, aim to bring breakthrough technologies from the laboratory to their first industrial deployment. But we will also take a fresh look at how we support the whole value chain, down to the mass production of the most strategic green-tech solutions and clean end-products, including through public investment. Our state aid frameworks exist to preserve our precious Single Market. But if investments in strategic sectors leak away from Europe, this would only undermine the Single Market. And that is why we are now reflecting on how to simplify and adapt our state aid rules.

    My second point has to do with complementary European funding. While it is critical that Member States have the flexibility to invest their budgets in strategic sectors, this approach cannot be self-standing. As such it would favour deep-pocket states and lead to distortions that would eventually undermine the Single Market. Thus, we also need a common European answer to the challenge – both in the short and the mid term. In the short term, we have to bridge the difficult time of transition for our SMEs and industries towards cheaper and renewable energy all across the EU. REPowerEU is our tool for that. REPowerEU invests in energy efficiency, in renewable energy and in infrastructure to integrate the Energy Union. And REPowerEU will massively speed up the permitting process for renewable energy projects. We are now working on boosting REPowerEU. REPowerEU also needs greater firepower to accelerate the clean transition. However, we also need to think beyond ad hoc solutions. The new assertive industrial policy of our competitors requires a structural answer. In my State of the Union address, I introduced the idea of establishing a sovereignty fund. The logic behind is simple: a common European industrial policy requires common European funding. The goal of our European industrial policy is for European industry to be the leaders in the clean transition. This means over the mid term beefing up the resources available for upstream research, innovation and strategic projects at the EU level. This means on one hand new and additional funding at the EU level. And on the other hand, higher level of policy coordination, like hydrogen, semiconductors, quantum computing, AI and biotechnology.

    On my final point: cooperation instead of confrontation. We are working closely with the Biden administration on how to jointly strengthen our clean energy industrial bases. Let me go back to the example I gave you earlier: electrical vehicles or EVs. In Europe, we have just agreed to phase out the combustion engine by 2035. This means, new vehicles sold after 2035 will be exclusively electric. Similar regulatory commitments exist in the United States. And at the same time, China is subsidising massively this sector. So we, the US and the EU, have a vast common interest to preserve our industrial leadership. This will require fundamental changes in the automobile industry. It will require significant private and public investments in innovation, infrastructure, supply chains and raw materials on both sides of the Atlantic. But it is not just about investment – it is also about setting standards and joining forces where it makes sense. Take for example the charging infrastructure for EVs: if Europe and the United States agree on common standards, we will shape global standards and not leave it to others. Or take critical raw materials for clean tech: Today, the production and processing of some of these critical raw materials are controlled by one single country, China. Europe and the US can build an alternative to this monopoly by establishing a critical raw materials club. The idea behind it is simple: Cooperation with partners and allies on sourcing, on production and on the processing gives us the ability to overcome the monopoly. These two examples of standards and raw materials give you an idea on what we are working on with the White House for the here and now.

    Finally, all this should be seen in a wider context. So let us zoom out again and focus on the bigger picture. An aggressive Russia is threatening our democracies and blackmailing us with our dependency on fossil fuel energy. An increasingly assertive China is cultivating dependencies in all continents, to project power for its own interests. But by contrast, look at what the US and Europe can achieve if we join forces. Take Ukraine. Think about the immense impact of our sanctions. Think how much support we have mobilised, from our countries and the world, to help Ukraine in the last nine months. Look at us joining forces to dry out Russia’s war chest by introducing an oil price cap. Since the end of the Cold War, never has transatlantic cooperation been closer than in those last two years. We have ended long-standing disputes, on steel tariffs, on Airbus-Boeing, on securing data flows. We have created a Tech and Trade Council to cooperate on tech and trade matters. We have set up a Task Force on European Energy Security that led to additional deliveries of 15 bcm of LNG this year. In the first half of 2022, the US supplied more than three-quarters of the EU’s additional needs. And on climate, we have brought together over 100 countries to sign the Global Methane Pledge – a commitment to cut global methane emissions by 30% in this decade. This is the power of transatlantic partnership.

    Dear students, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    This is my message to you as you embark on this journey at the European Diplomatic Academy. There will always be times where new challenges emerge and old tensions rise back to the surface. This can be the case with rivals and competitors or even with our oldest and closest partners. But as you will learn in this next year, Europe always looks for solutions – crafted by cooperation, designed by diplomacy. Of course, Europe will always do what is right for Europe. So yes, the EU will respond in an adequate and well calibrated manner to the IRA. But does this mean that we will engage in a costly trade war with the United States in the middle of an actual war? This is not in our interest. Nor in the interest of the Americans. And it would harm global innovation, too. That is why we have to work so hard in Europe and the US now to address the distortions. The last two years, the EU and the US have shown that we are stronger individually when we stand together collectively. When we focus on what binds us – our values and friendship, our belief in fair competition and open markets and our commitment to the rules-based order. For friends like us, competition and cooperation can be two faces of the same coin. Let us strengthen clean investment on both sides of the Atlantic. Let us do it for our people, for our industries, for affordable clean energy worldwide, and for the sake of our planet.

    Long live Europe.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement on Russian Accountability and the Use of Russian Frozen Assets

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement on Russian Accountability and the Use of Russian Frozen Assets

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 30 November 2022.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought death, devastation and unspeakable suffering.

    We all remember the horrors of Bucha.

    First, Russia must pay for its horrific crimes, including for its crime of aggression against a sovereign state.

    This is why, while continuing to support the International Criminal Court, we are proposing to set up a specialised court, backed by the United Nations, to investigate and prosecute Russia’s crime of aggression.

    We are ready to start working with the international community to get the broadest international support possible for this specialised court.

    Secondly, Russia must also pay financially for the devastation that it caused. The damage suffered by Ukraine is estimated at 600 billion euros. Russia and its oligarchs have to compensate Ukraine for the damage and cover the costs for rebuilding the country.

    And we have the means to make Russia pay. We have blocked 300 billion euros of the Russian Central Bank reserves and we have frozen 19 billion euros of Russian oligarchs’ money.

    In the short term, we could create, with our partners, a structure to manage these funds and invest them. We would then use the proceeds for Ukraine.

    And once the sanctions are lifted, these funds should be used so that Russia pays full compensation for the damages caused to Ukraine.

    We will work on an international agreement with our partners to make this possible. And together, we can find legal ways to get to it.

    Russia’s horrific crimes will not go unpunished.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the “Grain from Ukraine” Summit

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the “Grain from Ukraine” Summit

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 26 November 2022.

    Thank you, dear Volodymyr, for convening us on this very important day.

    This meeting falls on the Holodomor memorial day – when 90 years ago, hunger was used as a weapon by the Soviet Union against the Ukrainian people.

    Today, Russia is again using food as a weapon.

    As part of its brutal aggression against Ukraine, Russia has destroyed your agricultural production, targeted your grain silos, and blockaded your ports.

    Thus Russia is depriving of vital access to food the most vulnerable countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

    And then it uses disinformation to blame others for its despicable actions.

    We must continue to fight back against this.

    Your initiative “Grain from Ukraine”, which has my full support, is crucial to our efforts.

    You are showing unwavering commitment to global food security, international responsibility and solidarity with those most in need.

    And we stand by your side.

    In Bali, G20 leaders called for global solidarity to fight hunger caused by Russia’s war of aggression.

    We will not falter in our responsibilities and will continue to do everything we can on this front.

    The Solidarity Lanes established by the Commission and bordering Member States are a major success.

    Since May, they have enabled the export of more than 17 million tonnes of Ukrainian grain and food products.

    And they are the only option for the export of all other, non-agricultural Ukrainian goods to the rest of the world.

    The Solidarity Lanes have become a lifeline for Ukraine’s economy, bringing more than 19 billion euros of much-needed income to Ukrainian farmers and businesses.

    The European Commission, together with Financial Institutions such as the EIB, the EBRD, and the World Bank, have now mobilised 1 billion euros of additional funding to boost the capacity of these Solidarity Lanes.

    And we welcome the extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative for 120 days.

    Taken together, the EU Solidarity Lanes and the Black Sea Grain Initiative have allowed the export of more than 28 million tonnes of agricultural products to the world market, especially to the countries most in need.

    It is very important to signal to the world today that we will not let our most vulnerable partners down.

    This is why I am very pleased to announce the support of the European Commission to load two ships with grain.

    We will pay to transport 40,000 tons of grain which is the remainder of the grain that you have made available. Whatever the costs are.

    90 years after the Holodomor, we honour the memory of Ukraine’s victims.

    They died in silence, starving to death, and, at that time, the world did not rise to help them. We will not let this happen again.

    As we come together with Ukraine today to help avert hunger around the world, we also stand with Ukraine as it mourns the innocent victims of the Holodomor.

    And we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

    Slava Ukraini!

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the End of COP27

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the End of COP27

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 20 November 2022.

    COP27 marks a small step towards climate justice but much more is needed for the planet.

    We have treated some of the symptoms but not cured the patient from its fever.

    I am pleased that COP27 has opened a new chapter on financing loss and damage, and laid the foundations for a new method for solidarity between those in need and those in a position to help. We are rebuilding trust. This is crucial moving forward because there can be no lasting action against climate change without climate justice. The European Union is already the world’s leading contributor of international climate finance, and I am satisfied that we confirmed our commitment to support the most vulnerable on our planet through a first contribution on loss and damage.

    COP27 has kept alive the goal of 1.5C. Unfortunately however, it has not delivered on a commitment by the world’s major emitters to phase down fossil fuels, nor new commitments on climate mitigation. But the EU will stay the course, notably through the European Green Deal and REPowerEU, because it is essential to keep the ambition of the Paris Agreement within reach.

    I extend my heartfelt thanks to the EU’s negotiating team in Sharm El Sheikh for their determination and hard work throughout the conference.