During a statement in the House of Commons yesterday about the Government’s Low Carbon Transmission Plan the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Ed Milliband MP) publicly stated for the first time that Vestas had made it clear that government grants would not have persuaded them to retain manufacturing facilities on the Island. The remarks were made in response to criticism from the Liberal Democrat Spokesman on Climate Change who represents a London constituency. The closure of the Newport factory will lead to the loss of 600 jobs on the Island, which Andrew Turner the Island’s MP has described as a ‘bodyblow to the local economy’. Ed Milliband pointed out that Vesta’s decision to close the factory was due to their wish to produce turbine blades in the USA where they have a large market and the ability to expand their manufacturing facility. The Minister also highlighted the fact that it was difficult to get permission in the UK for on-shore wind turbines which is Vesta’s area of expertise.

Mr Turner said:
I have had a number of meetings with Government Ministers about the work they had undertaken with Vestas prior to the announcement that they planned to close the factory on the Island. It was very clear to me that they had explored every avenue in order to work with the company to keep the factory open. I attended a public meeting on Friday 3rd July in the Riverside Centre organised by Cowes Trades Council and Workers Climate Action and a number of people there expressed the view that simply pumping yet more public money into the factory would keep it open. I had planned to raise this issue in depth during a debate next Tuesday so that it would become clear to my constituents that this option had been properly explored at the highest levels.

I understand how important this is to the Island but to be fair to the Government I do think they have worked hard to try to keep the Vestas factory here on the Island. It is easy to simply knock the Government as the Liberal Democrat spokesman has done (although to be fair he couldn’t have known what has gone on behind the scenes) but when a hugely profitable multi-national company simply decides that it wants to close down a factory regardless of the consequences on it’s workforce or the local economy it seems that there is little that can be done. That is one of the reasons why it is important that public money is invested in businesses that are firmly rooted in local economies.”

END Contact : Andrew Turner’s office 01983 530808 or mobile 07799 866466
Hansard Link : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090715/debtext/90715-0005.htm
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I congratulate him on his personal commitment to ensuring that we move to being a low-energy country. I welcome the announcement of carbon budgets throughout the sector as well as for the Government as a whole, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for announcing that the regulator will be given new requirements.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): You’re supposed to be asking a question.
Simon Hughes: I am going to ask the Secretary of State questions, not because I want to be confrontational but because his policy is lacking in certain areas. Will he confirm that the Government will wish to be judged at the next election not on words but on delivery? Will he therefore explain why, on the day that we have heard that the only company producing turbines in this country is going to close, the Government have done nothing specific to support the growth of UK-based industry in the sector? What is his estimate of the amount of new technology that will be produced in this country, as opposed to abroad, by the end either of next year or of the next five years?
Given that we are at the bottom of the European league table on renewables, with a contribution of 2 per cent. compared with more than 30 per cent. in Sweden and almost 10 per cent.

in Germany, is not the reality that, although the Chancellor announced incentives for the renewables sector in the Budget, he has subsequently failed, because the renewables industry has been waiting three months for the promised meeting to discuss how the European Investment Bank money can be accessed, and no meeting has taken place? Why have all the English regions bar one failed to reach their renewables target? What will change that situation over the next year, and the next five years? Will individual communities, including counties such as Cornwall and countries such as Wales, be able to get on with their own policies to deliver the green peninsula, in Cornwall, and the green country, in Wales, without the Government telling them what to do?

On fuel poverty, given the criticisms by the Secretary of State’s own advisory body and the fact that the number of people in fuel poverty has gone up from 1 million to 4 million, will he give a categorical promise that none of the policies that he has announced will adversely affect those on low incomes—not just the 800,000 whom he mentioned in his statement, but the millions of people on low incomes—and that they will not be forced to pay the bills for the policy that he has announced? Will the bills fall on the private sector, with its big profits, and on those of us who can afford to pay, so that in the end we have a fairer Britain, not just a greener Britain?
The Secretary of State knows that my party does not share the Labour-Tory love-in with the nuclear industry. Is it not true that no new UK nuclear power station has ever been built on time or to budget? Is it not also true that the more that he and his friends cosy up to the nuclear industry, the more likely it is that the renewables industry will not get the support and technological investment that it needs?

On the grid, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said as far as it goes, but how soon will there be flexible access, which has been denied for years, so that people can start to contribute as they have been waiting to do? Are we as a country now committed to the European super-grid? If so, what are we going to do about it?
Two last things, if I may. First, are we going to—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that if there are two last things, they need to be two very brief last things, because he is already over time?
Simon Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful.
Are we committed to decarbonising the power sector fully by 2030? And, what will the Government do to help the biofuels industry? Many small businesses have supported it but now believe that it is being regulated out of existence. For example, it has produced fuel from used chip fat and wants to contribute to a new renewables industry, but it has been told that it cannot do that in the future.
Edward Miliband: The Liberal spokesman asks serious questions that deserve answers. Let me try to answer them as best as I can.
We had discussions with Vestas, but I want to make it clear that it never wanted grants or money to persuade it to stay in this country. The option was obviously considered with the company, but there were two factors in its decision.

The first aspect is that it was making turbines for America, where it had a factory. The second aspect is related to the hon. Gentleman’s point about renewables, and is a big issue for everyone in the House. It is about planning—not so much the planning rules, because we are changing them, although unfortunately the Opposition want to reverse that change, but the question of whether one can get onshore wind turbines built. Vestas’ speciality is onshore wind, and that requires political persuasion—a hard job for all parts of the House. The job is to persuade people that although onshore wind turbines may be unsightly to some, the bigger threat to the countryside is not wind turbines but climate change. Of course there are areas where wind turbines would be inappropriate, and we have proposals today in our renewable energy strategy about how we can work with local people to site the turbines more sensitively, but they have to go somewhere, and we all need to focus on that necessity.

We are proceeding with the investments via the European Investment Bank, the money will be going out of the door soon—in the autumn, I think—and we are going as fast as we can. If there is an issue about meetings with representatives, I am happy to address it.
On fuel poverty, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we face a massive challenge. It will be an even bigger challenge in the future. I am happy to work together on the issue, but we need to find all the ways to tackle fuel poverty that we can. Reforming social tariffs is a good start, but if there are other ways we should definitely use them, because given the upward pressures on prices, fuel poverty will be a big challenge over the next decade—and, frankly, beyond that.
The hon. Gentleman and I disagree about nuclear energy. I am not engaged in a love-in with the nuclear industry, but I do think that nuclear energy has an important role to play. On grid access, I said that the new plans would be in place within a year, and that that is how we will speed up the connections, because I did not want the stand-off between the industry and Ofgem to continue.
The super-grid is an interesting idea, but it is expensive. None the less, we are happy to explore it, and we are doing so. I would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman separately about some of the other questions that he raised.