John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Who will pay for CCS as it does not generate any direct revenue from retail customers?

Graham Stuart (Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero)
To decarbonise industry, we will need CCS and hydrogen. We are socialising the funding requirements across the piece to ensure that we deliver what is necessary to meet our carbon targets, at the lowest possible cost to consumers. This year we are also consulting on measures to prevent carbon leakage, ensure that we do not drive UK industry abroad, which I know my right hon. Friend is concerned about, and instead maintain our competitiveness as we move towards net zero.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What would be the saving were the Government to raise the age by one year to 68?

Mel Stride (Minister of State for Pensions)
That is a beautiful question because it is precise; it requires an answer that one cannot duck. I will write to my right hon. Friend with that information.

The Department for Transport has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (174163):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to promote the uptake of electric cars by Government departments.. (174163)

Tabled on: 27 March 2023

Answer:
Jesse Norman:

Decarbonising road transport is critical to delivering the UK’s net zero ambitions and the Government has an important leadership role to play in driving this transition.

As of September 2022, over 25% of the cars and vans in the central government fleet were ultra-low emission vehicles, delivering this target well ahead of the Government’s December 2022 deadline. The Government is now going even further and has committed to its car and van fleet being fully zero emission at the tailpipe by 31 December 2027. Departmental officials are working with colleagues from the Crown Commercial Service and Energy Saving Trust to provide other government departments with advice and guidance to support them to deliver this commitment.

The answer was submitted on 31 Mar 2023 at 10:36.

In the last year Brexit Britain’s exports soared by 24%

Rejoiners who want to put our country down may wail, but the facts are the facts.

CIBUK Article : https://cibuk.org/in-the-last-year-brexit-britains-exports-soared-by-24-percent/

CIBUK Twitter : https://twitter.com/CibukOrg/status/1642073673216532483

CIBUK Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/CIBUKOrg/posts/165405233078578

Facts4EU Article:: https://facts4eu.org/news/2023_apr_big_brexit_win_3

Facts4EU Twitter: https://twitter.com/Facts4euOrg/status/1642050714326257665?s=20

Facts4EU Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Facts4EU/posts/pfbid0241CwdiioGoteXX6Z7tJBjJgCUZGk965zKymJ5YVx3AFuYLbpiXzX82oikGmyi3gTl

Great news that last year UK trade surged and inward investment reached a new record. The BBC and the Remain campaigners push out errant forecasts and strange models to suggest post Brexit the UK will do badly, ignoring the reality of trade and overseas investment rising. Why do they always want to run the UK down? Why do they play down the significance of so much investment coming from outside the EU despite their dogma that our trade and prosperity depend on the EU? The USA is by far and away our biggest export market and we are doing well there. Services are particularly strong. Now we are out of the EU we are negotiating trade deals like the TPP one which include services, something the EU did not include in most of their deals.

Governments and all the UK parties in Parliament want to cut UK CO 2 output. I have been arguing against some the damaging self defeating policies they propose to do this. Stopping UK gas and oil extraction in order to import oil and gas increases world CO 2 as well as cutting our jobs and tax revenues. So does stopping food growing here so we import more. Blocking roads and deliberately creating traffic congestion boosts CO 2 from delayed vehicles. Today I will give my top picks on popular policies Ministers could follow to cut UK CO 2.

1. Reduce legal and illegal migration. Every extra person has a carbon footprint, and needs a  home and public service provision that also generate CO 2

2. Tell the public sector to substitute on line meetings for foreign travel to international meetings in most cases.

3. Install solar panels on most public sector roofs

4. Replace public sector gas central heating systems with heat pumps to create a market for them, which should then drive down prices and improve effectiveness of these unpopular products.

5. Step up bypass and better junction construction on roads to improve average fuel economy on journeys and remove more traffic from congested urban areas

6. Cancel work beyond current firm commitments on  HS2. It is very carbon intensive.

Windfall taxes make the things taxed dearer. They reduce investment and output in the items taxed, cutting supply.

We were told that the very high prices of gas and oil that resulted from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and from the West’s decision to stop buying Russian energy were generating windfall profits, both by the fossil fuel companies and by the renewable generators whose prices of electricity reflected the gas price. Gas remains the largest fuel source used in UK generation.

It is true there were such windfall profits as the gas price soared. Today the wholesale gas price is 85% lower than the peak it reached at the worst point after the outbreak of war. The oil price is also down by a third from Ukraine highs. If you impose a windfall tax based on a one off shift in prices that gives companies a bonus, shouldn’t you remove the tax when that price change disappears? It was a weakness of the windfall tax that it did not describe the  nature of the windfall or seek to fairly reflect its size and duration going forward.

Few will be sympathetic to large energy companies who have recently been making large profits. However, if the UK perseveres with a level of taxation that is materially higher than elsewhere for energy, and demonstrates an unwillingness to remove windfall taxes after the windfall has gone, we will find it more difficult to attract the investment and jobs we need to produce more domestic energy. Customers end up paying the higher taxes and business will migrate to lower taxed countries.

The government is pressing ahead with carbon capture and storage projects. When I asked on Thursday who was paying I think the answer was taxpayers, though the Minister delphically said they will “socialise” the costs.

Normally when a business makes an investment customers pay for the output from the facility being installed. In this case the output is storing a lot of CO2, where the customer seems to be the state. It raises the question whose CO2 is it storing? Is that a cost of whatever caused the extra CO 2 in the first place? Some of it will indeed be CO 2 generated by the state itself, with all those heating systems in public sector offices and all that travel of public officials.

Overall the UK government needs to review just how much extra cost it is imposing through windfall taxes, carbon taxes and now these carbon capture schemes. It needs to get off the import best model. Current carbon accounting based on national boundaries still seems to encourage Ministers and officials to close down or drive out carbon dioxide generating activities in the UK, only to import the goods needed from abroad who can then account for the CO 2 in their national figures. This makes  no sense for controlling world CO 2 and is damaging to the UK economy and business.

The present international carbon accounting could have been designed for April 1st.

It is strange that the Bank of England has a Monetary Policy Committee yet  declines to set targets for money and credit expansion. It does not  normally comment on money and credit growth in its Reports, preferring to concentrate on past figures for GDP, inflation, estimated capacity utilisation and unemployment. Its forecasting record has been poor in recent years. It confidently expected inflation to stay down around 2% following its big monetary expansion and bond buying policy of 2020-21. It has only recently accepted inflation has greatly overshot its target and forecasts, waiting for the overshoot before admitting it. It now forecasts inflation to fall well below target in a couple of year’s time, yet still hiked interest rates higher as if it did not believe  its own forecast.

Whilst it is true that any given monetary measure may become distorted if it is a target or prime interest of a Central Bank, it is also true that if we look at any of the great inflations they have been accompanied or caused by excessive money and credit creation in their early stages. Given the Bank’s wish to interfere in the bond markets and to manage interest rates for various periods of borrowing from overnight to 50 years, you would have thought it would take an interest in how much money and credit is in circulation and in how far that might expand  given its actions. If inflation is agreed by the Bank to  be too much money chasing too few goods, they should not only study the too few goods (capacity) but also the too much money. Traditionally Central Banks have tried to control money and credit by moving interest rates, expecting commercial banks to lend less when rates are higher and lend more when rates are lower. More recently Central Banks have directly boosted money supply by creating bank reserves to buy up bonds. Much of this money initially found its way into asset prices, creating inflation in bonds, shares and property. More recently the inflation has spread into goods and services, as the money freed from the bonds has been spent.

The Bank should introduce some paragraphs in its commentary on rates of money and credit growth. They should explain why they think fast growth in these aggregates will not on that occasion produce inflation. Today they need to comment on whether there is enough money and credit around, given the slowdown and the dramatic change in money policy they have put the economy through.

Keeping inflation to 2% is a crucial role of the Bank of England, ECB and Fed. As events in the USA have just shown, it is however less important that avoiding banking collapse. Since Silicon Valley Bank got into trouble the Fed has made a huge change to its money policy, flipping from ultra tight with plenty of money withdrawal by selling bonds, to a large easing   with $300 bn of loans to commercial banks. It had to make the switch as it is the first duty of a Central Bank to provide cash to commercial banks so they can honour their deposits if a lot of people all want to withdraw at the same time.

The decision to shift to a much easier money policy in the short term was screened by still continuing with a 25 bp or 0.25% interest rate hike. The Fed wished to reassure some that it is still battling inflation, whilst reassuring others that their deposits are safe. Silicon Valley Bank had got into trouble because the Fed has raised rates so much, losing SVB money on the bonds it held. It is a reminder that shifting money policy to too tough brings different kinds of problems.

All the Central banks need to review where they are in money tightening and in bringing down inflation. There are always lags – it takes time to get inflation down by raising rates and throttling credit. It is important not to overdo the tightening as that can undermine banks as it  hits the affordability of credit and the value of bank investment holdings in bonds. They will all need to make sure plenty of cash is available to any bank that comes under unwelcome pressure to repay deposits, as that is the way to make sure there is no such run.

The government is currently concentrating on illegal migration with its eye catching and contentious promise by the Prime Minister to stop the boats that bring many of the illegal entrants to the UK. The Opposition parties oppose him strongly, demanding more safe routes for migrants and asylum seekers to come, and easier processes to allow people to enter more rapidly.

Most Conservatives believe the UK should provide refuge for some people fleeing violence or oppression elsewhere. This should be an offer as part of a wider offer by many richer countries to spread the  responsibility and to provide geographical choice to those seeking a new home. Many of us also believe the UK has been offering too many economic migrants a home and a job here, seeking to perpetuate a model of growing the economy by recruiting plenty of lower paid labour from abroad. Instead we would prefer to see investment in machines, computing, training and higher standards to get more of the work done with fewer better paid people. We want more better paid and high quality jobs for people already living here, backed  by the investment it takes to raise productivity and therefore wages.

The low pay model is not a great one for the people coming nor for the taxpayers who need to foot much of the bill for so called cheap labour. Paying people too little means state subsidy to provide them with housing, income top ups, health and education provision and a range of infrastructure and other public service provision. Last year we added 500,000 more people to our totals. To ensure they have a decent life that will take a lot of new housing, public sector facilities, roadspace, electricity and water capacity and a range of other capital intensive service provision. The EU some years ago suggested it took Euro 250,000 to provide for a migrant family or individual coming to the EU to provide all the facilities needed.