Ed Miliband
MP for Doncaster North · Labour · United Kingdom
“Gentleman raises the issue of arms, and I talked in my statement about the double lock. I want to take on his point on the F-35s. To be clear with the House, we stopped providing direct parts to Israel’s F-35 programme in October 2024, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) when he was Foreign Secretary.”
“I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his response. It is our first time opposite each other at the Dispatch Box, so let me congratulate him on his appointment—he has a proud record in Parliament as Security Minister and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and brings great expertise to this House.”
“Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000.”
“Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world.”
“The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on this issue. I will quickly clip through his questions, knowing the constraints on time, Madam Speaker. I agree with him on the World Central Kitchen. It is appalling that the investigation has been closed down.”
“Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,382 lines we hold for Ed Miliband, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 48.
“I definitely concur with what my hon. Friend says about ITM Power—an incredibly impressive company that I have visited. I also concur with him on the SMR programme. Our manifesto made it clear that we support new nuclear, including at Sizewell, and we also support the SMR programme. Part of our challenge is to examine the legacy left to us by the last Government, but he should be in no doubt about my absolute support for the SMR programme. It is important, and we will strive to keep to the timetable set out.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As with any planning decisions, there are clear parameters in the legislation on the consultation that needs to take place with local communities. I gently point out to her that, nine years ago, the last Government banned onshore wind in England for some of the reasons that she set out. I thought that was a mistake at the time, and it turned out to be even more of a mistake than I thought, because it exposed us to energy insecurity. We have to make judgments as Members of this House. Given the scale of the climate crisis, the energy insecurity and the energy security threat that we face, do we believe that we need to build infrastructure? I happen to believe that we do—yes, with community consent; yes, with community benefit; and yes, with the planning rules that I have set out.”
“My hon. Friend is an incredibly eloquent advocate for his port, which I was delighted to visit during the election campaign. He makes such an important point: for an island nation looking to take advantage—in terms of jobs as well as generation—of the opportunities of offshore wind, including floating offshore wind, our ports are a massively undervalued and under-invested asset. That is why in our manifesto we set out the largest public investment in ports since privatisation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it must involve the whole of our United Kingdom. Scotland has a special place in that, as it will become the new headquarters of GB Energy.”
“In the spirit that I spoke about in my statement, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on deep geothermal? It was an outstanding example of how Members of Parliament can advance the role that particular technologies can play. He is a most eloquent advocate for this technology. Among the many places I went during the election campaign, I had the chance to see deep geothermal in Cornwall, which also has the potential for lithium mining: it is a source of critical minerals. Between me and the new Minister for energy—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is going to be a very busy man—we will make sure that we meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to take forward this agenda.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election. May I say that she is a great person to go out on a boat with and that I very much enjoyed our tour? My hon. Friend makes such an important point about the Celtic sea and about the opportunity that we have. One of the decisions on my desk will be how we make sure that we advance floating wind technology and that we manufacture it in the UK. As Tim Pick, the offshore wind champion, often reminds me, the largest floating wind prototype is off the coast of Scotland, but it is not manufactured in the UK. We need to change that.”
“I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Great British Energy will of course have a strong interest in nuclear power, working with Great British Nuclear. It is very important for the future. This Government were very clear in our manifesto about the role that nuclear power—both large-scale nuclear and SMRs—can play. I know that the last Government purchased the site for Wylfa, and it is something that we will certainly be looking at.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this project to my attention. In a way, the questions from both sides of the House demonstrate the huge potential we have in this area, not just to tackle the climate crisis and energy insecurity but to create the good jobs of the future. I undertake that the Department will want to look closely at her project.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I certainly took an interest in the project when I was in opposition. I have met Xlinks, the company involved. I need to be careful about what I say on these matters, as he will appreciate, but it is certainly a project that my Department will want to consider.”
“That is the kind of question I like. My hon. Friend makes a serious and important point about air pollution, which is another reason why we need to move away from fossil fuels. In a sense, the tragedy of air pollution is that it is a silent killer. Tens of thousands of people a year die prematurely in our country as a result of air pollution. People would be out on the streets if it were any other issue but, because it is a silent killer, it is too little noticed. He is absolutely right that this is yet another reason why it is important that we act with speed and transition as fast as possible.”
“On the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I am proud to have been supported by the GMB and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers during the election campaign. I think the sums are below the declarable limit, but I am very happy to put that on the record. As a constituency MP, I understand local people’s concerns about planning issues, and we have to take those concerns seriously. We know that not all planning applications are good, and that is the Government’s position. At the same time, particularly in the light of what the National Infrastructure Commission has said, it is widely recognised that how the planning process works has delayed the clean energy we need and has made us poorer as a country. This Government are determined to change that.”
“I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being such an eloquent advocate for Grangemouth so early in his time as a Member of Parliament. His counsel, advice and work on this subject have been very important. I have had three conversations with my counterpart in the Scottish Government over the last two weeks, which is a sign of how we intend to continue. We will work across parties and across Government to do all we can. The future of Grangemouth really matters to this Government, and we will leave no stone unturned in working with the unions, the companies and the Scottish Government to do everything we can to secure a viable future for activity on the site and for the communities of Grangemouth.”
“I am slightly disappointed but not surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s tone. I would have thought that the Scottish National party would welcome a publicly owned energy generation company located in Scotland—my counterpart in the Scottish Government certainly welcomed it. Let us be absolutely clear that it will be a generator of energy. That is what companies such as Ørsted and Statkraft do. They own power in this country, and we will do the same. These are complex questions, and we definitely need fairness across the United Kingdom when it comes to energy prices. That is what this Government endeavour to deliver.”
“My hon. Friend has been an incredibly eloquent advocate on these issues, including in the last Parliament. This is an important point for all parties in the House to reckon with. The energy insecurity case for action on clean energy is totally transformed from when I was Energy Secretary 15 years ago. Why? Partly because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reminds us of what exposure can look like, but it is also because we have seen a 90% fall in the cost of solar and a 70% fall in the cost of offshore wind over the last decade. The old argument that this energy will save us money in the long term but might cost more in the short term has changed. This is the cheapest, cleanest form of energy we can access.”
“Anyone who knows me knows that I am a super-nerd. I take all of my responsibilities, particularly my quasi-judicial responsibilities, incredibly seriously, and I did in all the judgments I made.”
“We can say no to clean energy and to building grids, but that will leave us poorer and more exposed, and mean that we are not doing what is required to tackle the climate crisis. This Government have made their choice; others will have to do so too.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He draws attention to a fact in the Climate Change Committee report that is worth underlining: we have an internationally set, nationally determined contribution of 68% reductions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. However, the Climate Change Committee said this morning that only a third of the emissions reductions required are covered by credible plans—that is the legacy we have been left. I am determined that we meet those targets, which is why we have to speed up and act in a way that the last Government did not. My hon. Friend is right about clean energy. As I said earlier, this is a debate that this country will have to have.”
“Characteristically, the hon. Lady makes an important point. To deliver this agenda, we have to get the central-local relationship right, because if we try to deliver it all from the centre we will not succeed. To take the example of improving the appalling state of energy efficiency in our homes, much of that work will have to be delivered by local authorities. That is the right way to do it, and I pay tribute to all the local authorities across the country that are showing ambition in that area.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election. I have worked with her in the past and I know she will be an outstanding Member of Parliament. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, is going to be very busy, but I am sure he will happily meet her to discuss her question. She raises community energy schemes. I want to emphasise that one thing Great British Energy will deliver is our local power plan, which will work with local communities and local authorities to deliver community energy. One of the answers to the question of how we build public consent for this is community ownership of energy. We want to drive that forward, and that is what the local power plan will be about.”
“The most important thing is to secure a just transition for those communities, as set out in our manifesto, through £8.3 billion from Great British Energy and over £7 billion from our national wealth fund. The truth is that there is massive debate in the House about licensing. The right hon. Gentleman will not have been at the debate when we discussed these issues, but the difference it makes to how much of our gas demand is produced domestically is that under the old Government— [Interruption.] Let me explain. Under the old Government policy, there would have been a 95% reduction in our demand met domestically, but under this Government’s policy, it will be 97%. For all the hue and cry from the Opposition, that is the reality.”
“My hon. Friend is also a great guy to go on a boat with. As he says, Cornwall and our coastal communities have an incredibly important part to play. Some of the biggest economic challenges we face as a country are in our coastal communities. It is not easy, but if we get this right it will be a massive opportunity, not just for Cornwall but for all our coastal communities, and that is what this Government intend to do.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. In the last few days, I have sometimes sai3d to people that I feel that I am going back to the job I did 15 years ago, but getting to try and do it better. I am sure Members on the Opposition Benches would agree with that. It is an amazing opportunity and a big responsibility. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the role of rural of communities, particularly farming communities. We are determined to get the balance right between food security, nature preservation and clean energy. The truth is that we, as a country, have not thought about the role of our land enough in recent years. We hope that will be driven by the land use framework that will be produced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.”
“I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House. It is fantastic to see her back in her place—I congratulate her. She knows much about this subject through working for RenewableUK when she was outside the House, and she makes an important point. The shadow Secretary of State drew attention to our generation of offshore wind, which we have done well, but it is commonly accepted that we have not done nearly so well in generating the jobs that should come with that. Part of what I will be doing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is developing a proper green industrial strategy, including in the supply chain. That will provide clarity about the plan to ensure that we have not just energy generation, but job generation too.”
“I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I can confirm that GB Energy will play a role in all kinds of ways, and that we are certainly not restricting it in the way that she suggests. Furthermore, in the constructive spirit of these exchanges, I would ask that the Green party thinks about its commitment to tackling the climate crisis, which we all share, and then thinks about this question of infrastructure. If it wants to tackle the climate crisis, it should know that that simply will not happen if its leading members say no to new energy infrastructure.”
“I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He was head of policy when I was Leader of the Opposition, and I tended to do what he told me, rather than the other way round, so it is a particular pleasure to see him in his place. He makes such an important point. Tidal is an area where Britain is in the lead, but we want to go further and faster, as it has huge potential for our country.”
“I am afraid that we have to conduct these debates on the basis of fact, not myth. Some 0.1% of our land, and around that amount of agricultural land, is being used for solar panels. We cannot proceed on the basis of myth. The hon. Gentleman talks about the farming community. Farmers want this. The National Farmers Union has supported this decision. Of course we will work with local communities, but every time an Opposition Member gets up and opposes clean energy, they are saying to the British people, “We are going to make you poorer. We are going to make Britain more energy insecure, and we are not going to tackle the climate crisis.””
“I really welcome my hon. Friend’s advocacy on this issue. The hydrogen economy is a really important part of our future. It is yet another example of where we can succeed as a country and generate good jobs and good wages. I look forward to engaging with him on these issues.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for that invitation, and I will very much consider it, because I care a lot about this area. Obviously, I have to make decisions, in a certain capacity, about allocation round 6, but I have heard what he has said.”
“Let me welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He raises a very important issue. There were some standards put in place by the previous Government, but I think that we should take this issue incredibly seriously. I look forward to discussions with him on these issues.”
“First of all, let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that Robin Hood Energy was a supply company; this is a generation company. Robin Hood was a retailer, so it is different, but I have to say that I am surprised at the position that he takes. I thought his party was in favour of publicly owned energy. I think it produced lots of videos on social media to that effect.”
“I think to be called a kid at my time of life is stretching things a bit, but I am nevertheless grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. He makes the important point that huge opportunities exist right across our country. The United States has used the Inflation Reduction Act to seize those opportunities. Our economy is smaller, but we intend to seize those opportunities with a proper, modern industrial policy.”
“The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The previous Government had a whole series of consultations out on community benefit. We will respond to those, but I want to be very clear that I believe that when a community takes on the responsibility of hosting clean energy infrastructure, it should benefit from it.”
“Let me welcome my hon. Friend to her place, and congratulate her on her election; she will be a great Member of Parliament. She raises such an important issue. More than 3 million people are in fuel poverty in our country. One thing that this Government will do that the last Government did not is demand that landlords raise the standard of their accommodation to a proper energy performance certificate standard C by 2030. That will make a dent in this issue, but the House should be in no doubt about our ambition to cut that number of 3.2 million as much as possible in the five years of this Parliament.”
“I will look at all proposals, but I think the hon. Gentleman knows that underground cables cost six to 10 times more; that is why the last Government did not agree to them. [ Official Report , 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 1WC.] (Correction) If part of our challenge is to cut bills for people, that is not a sustainable solution for the future. I am sympathetic to all MPs who raise issues on behalf of their constituents, but I gently say again to him that if we want to avoid a repeat of the cost of living crisis, if we want to tackle the climate crisis, and if we want energy security, we will have to build the grid in our country.”
“I was delighted to visit the port of Milford Haven during the election campaign. There is an interesting issue here: the £1.8 billion investment that this Government are making in our ports will hopefully allow us to invest in floating offshore wind at more ports than the last Government were able to. I cannot make promises about particular ports from the Dispatch Box, but this is so important, because if we are to get the jobs here, we must invest in our port infrastructure.”
“The hon. Gentleman nods his head. I will be honest with him: we are not going to give community veto. The last Government did not give it either. There are nationally significant projects that the Government have to make decisions on. Obviously, we have to take into account the views of local communities, but the whole point of decision making on the nationally significant infrastructure programme is that we look at the needs of the nation as well. That is why community benefit is important. If we ask local communities to host clean energy infrastructure, sometimes they will not want it, or sometimes a minority will not want it—I am not making presumptions in this case—and then we should ensure that those communities benefit from it.”
“I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He raises the important question of how we ensure—this issue will be familiar to Members across the House—that we not only have the capacity to generate jobs in clean energy but can meet the skills needs of the country in order to fill them. This is frankly something on which we need to do a lot better as a country. My Department—I will talk about this in the next few weeks—will take on more of a function around looking at the skills needs of the clean energy economy, working with the Department for Education on how we meet them. He raises a crucial point in that context.”
“I was delighted to visit the Cheyne Court wind farm with my hon. Friend—a wind farm that I opened 15 years ago on my first visit as the Secretary of State. Pictures of how much I have aged between then and now are available on request. He raises a really important issue. He is an important advocate for clean energy, whether in relation to wind power or the potential nuclear programme. Both are important to us.”
“I am pleased that my hon. Friend has asked me that question. The world wants to see British leadership, but British leadership starts at home with the power of example. If we do not show that we are acting at home then people say, “You’re telling us one thing abroad, but doing something different when it comes to your own domestic situation.” The truth is that COP29 in Azerbaijan and crucially COP30 in Brazil will be very important moments. COP30 is when the world has to come to terms with how far off track we are from 1.5°C, and put in our nationally determined contributions for 2035. I look forward to Britain playing as much of a constructive role in those negotiations as we can.”
“My hon. Friend, who I welcome to his place, makes such an important point about the role Teesside can play. I saw on a recent visit how much potential there is and we look forward to working with him on these issues.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and welcome him to the House. He brings a wealth of knowledge and experience on these issues. I enjoyed my visit to Basingstoke. What really came home to me on that visit was young people’s enthusiasm for this agenda—not simply because they care about the climate crisis, but because they see this as a potential future for themselves, their friends and their family. I look forward to working with colleges such as his to make that a reality.”
“I welcome my hon. Friend to his place and congratulate him on his election, and I commend his housing association for what it is doing. He raises one of the biggest issues that the previous Government faced and that this Government face. The flipside of all the Conservative Members saying that they do not want the grid built is what my hon. Friend just said—maybe they should have a conversation. What he is saying is that if we do not build the grid, we cannot get the clean energy and we cannot cut bills for our constituents. I do not say that this is easy, and I do not want to pretend that it is. Certainly the last Government did not find it easy, but we have to decide. To govern is to choose, and our choice is that we believe this clean energy infrastructure needs to be built.”
“Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend. He raises an important point that we have not touched on: the role of citizens in this change. My sense is that, while of course there are specific planning issues that people raise about their own communities, the view of many citizens in our country is, “What can I do? What difference can I make?” I think the Government need to do a better job of answering that. That is not nanny-statism, to reassure the Conservatives, but public information about the difference people can make in this incredibly important cause.”
“I welcome my hon. Friend to this House and thank him for the work we did together in opposition on all these issues. As this is the final question, he ends on a really important point: this Government have a completely different attitude to the role that trade unions can play in the future of our energy system, and we are proud of it. If we are to make the energy transition, including in the North sea, and build a proper industrial policy for the future, we should do what every other self-respecting nation does and have trade unions at the heart of our policymaking and decision making. That is what this Government will do.”
“Two weeks ago the Government were found, for a second time, to be in breach of the law over their climate targets. That failure will mean that families across the country will pay higher energy bills. The Court found: “The Secretary of State’s conclusion that the proposals and policies will enable the carbon budgets to be met was irrational”. Last time, the Government claimed that their breach of the law was just on a technicality. What is the right hon. Lady’s “dog ate my homework” excuse this time?”
“With a defence like that, I can see why the Government lost in court not just once but twice. Buried in the court documents is the confidential memo that reveals the real reason they lost the case—officials were telling Ministers that they had low or very low confidence that half their carbon reductions would be achieved. That is why they were found unlawful. The right hon. Lady comes to the House each month with her complacent nonsense, but the court judgment exposes the truth: the Government are way off track, abysmally failing to meet the climate emergency and pushing up bills for families as a result.”
“Mr Speaker, can I start by paying tribute to your father, Doug? He was a remarkable fighter for social justice, and we share your sense of loss. A year ago, after presiding over the absolute scandal of the forced installation of prepayment meters, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor promised full compensation for anyone affected. Unbelievably, she has left it to the energy companies to decide who gets compensation and how much. They have assessed 150,000 people and just 1,500 got anything—99% got nothing. Why has she so catastrophically failed to deliver justice for those affected by the PPM scandal?”
“That is simply not good enough. It is a year on. The right hon. Lady is the Energy Secretary; she should be delivering that compensation to people, and she is failing across the board. The onshore wind ban remains; the offshore wind market crashes; the insulation schemes are a disaster, while she spends her time appeasing the flat-earth, anti-net zero brigade in her own party. No wonder the former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) resigned. Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State is failing in her job and the British people are paying the price?”
“Last September, the Energy Secretary claimed she was lifting the onshore wind ban, but in the whole of 2023 and so far in 2024 there have been zero applications for new onshore wind farms designed for domestic electricity supply in England. She said that her decision would speed up the delivery of projects. Why does she think it has not worked?”
“The right hon. Lady did not answer the question. I will tell her why it has not worked: because she has left a uniquely restrictive planning regime in place for onshore wind. Her failure is costing families across this country £180 a year on their bills. We know that her policy has failed. She could dump the ban at the stroke of a pen. If she is vaguely serious about clean energy, why does she not face down the headbangers on her Back Benches and lift the ban?”
“[Interruption.] The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) says from a sedentary position that that is not the case. He is wrong and I will read him the minutes: “the Board expressed a unanimous view that such a proposal was not necessary for the NSTA…The Board noted that the proposal would significantly challenge one of the tenets of independence for the NSTA”.”