Chris McDonald
MP for Stockton North · Labour · United Kingdom
“This Bill will assist in that by ensuring that steel production is secured, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and supporting the Government’s economic growth plans where the public interest test is met. The Lords amendments before us strengthen the Bill in several ways.”
“This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment.”
“I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that.”
“Lords amendments 4 and 5 upgrade the parliamentary procedure relating to continuity obligations and enforcement, ensuring that Parliament has increased scrutiny of these matters.”
“I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon.”
“It is a pleasure to be back in the House today to see through the final stages of this Bill. The Government support all the Lords amendments before us. I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Minister Leong for so expertly guiding the Bill through its passage in the other place.”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Chris McDonald, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“Friend said, the ceramics industry is gas-intensive, which is possibly why it has previously fallen below the threshold, but of course we want the ceramics industry to electrify. The difference between gas and electricity costs is a concern for the industry. My hon. Friend also asked about the funding of the scheme. To be clear, we do not expect any increase in non-domestic or domestic bills as a consequence of the change. This is partially a result of the change in the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff schemes, from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. Essentially, we propose to pay for the change by bearing down on costs in the system. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire talked very well about the challenges for small businesses.”
“It is very pleasing to see a reasonable level of support across the Committee, not only for the draft regulations but for our energy-intensive industries. Perhaps I can answer the question from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston while talking at length about ceramics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and I both enjoy. A general review of eligibility for the supercharger is planned for this coming year, which would certainly be an opportunity to look at eligibility of other sectors. I have already said, and am happy to repeat to my hon. Friend, that I have tasked my officials with looking carefully at the case for the inclusion of the ceramics industry. Qualification for the supercharger system currently relates both to energy intensity and to the risk of export leakage. As my hon.”
“A second consultation ran between 28 November 2024 and 23 January 2025, seeking views on the details of how maritime would be incorporated in the UK ETS from 2026. The relevant responses to those consultations were summarised in the interim and main authority responses published in July and November 2025, respectively. The expansion of the UK ETS to cover maritime activities will support its role as a fundamental pillar of the UK’s climate policy. It plays a key part in the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net zero target by 2050. It also delivers on a key commitment within our maritime decarbonisation strategy, and I commend the draft order to the Committee.”
“If satisfied, the verifier will draft a verification report, which will be submitted to the regulator alongside the annual emissions report. Maritime operators will also be required to surrender a level of allowances equivalent to their emissions by 30 April in the year following the scheme year. However, the instrument introduces the concept of double surrender, whereby the date by which allowances must be surrendered in relation to the first scheme year, 2026, is 30 April 2028 and not 30 April 2027, as would otherwise be the case. These changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out a consultation in 2022 on the development of the UK ETS, including whether to include maritime activities in the scheme.”
“Operators will be assigned to a UK ETS regulator based on the location of their registered office or place of residence. This is the same approach as for aircraft operators. One emissions monitoring plan will cover all the ships for which the maritime operator is responsible, and emissions must be monitored using one of the four methods prescribed in the instrument. Maritime operators will be required to report emissions from all ships for which they are responsible through an annual emissions report, which must be submitted to the regulator on or before 31 March in the year following the scheme year to which it relates. Maritime operators have an obligation to verify their annual emissions report. The verification must be carried out by an impartial and accredited verifier, independent from the maritime operator.”
“The provisions set out in the instrument require the maritime operator of a ship—either its registered owner or the company responsible for its compliance with the international safety management code—first to obtain an emissions monitoring plan in which it will document the processes used to ascertain their ships’ emissions. For each scheme year, maritime operators will be expected to monitor, independently verify and report their maritime emissions to the relevant regulator, and surrender an equivalent level of allowances. The instrument also introduces the concept of surrender deductions, reducing by 50% the number of allowances for surrender in respect of voyages between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to deliver equivalence in carbon pricing on routes across the Irish sea.”
“The statutory instrument amends the legislation that gives effect to the UK ETS. It expands the scheme to cover carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from domestic voyages and in-port activities in the UK. Effective from 1 July 2026, maritime operators are required to participate in the scheme and allowed to bid at auction for UK allowances. The instrument will apply to ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above, but a small number of exemptions apply, such as for Government ships, including military and law enforcement ships, and ferries operating services to Scotland’s islands and peninsulas.”
“Under the scheme, a cap is set on the amount of certain greenhouse gases that may be emitted by the sectors it covers, and the cap is reduced over time so that total emissions must fall. Under the UK ETS, operators participating in the scheme are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. The scope of the UK ETS is being expanded to maritime activities as part of the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net zero target by 2050. The draft order is an effective lever to reduce emissions and delivers on a key commitment in the UK’s maritime decarbonisation strategy. We expect it to help to overcome key barriers to maritime decarbonisation by incentivising low-carbon fuels, fuel-efficient technologies and fuel-efficient operating practices.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. I am grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, and to the Committee for its consideration of the draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 13 January 2026. The UK ETS was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme was established to increase the climate ambition of the UK’s carbon pricing policy, while protecting the competitiveness of UK businesses. The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, a joint body involving the UK Government and the devolved Governments.”
“Of course, the carbon border adjustment mechanism is precisely there to protect British industry from unfair competition from imports from more polluting industries in countries without such regulations. The Opposition’s objections to the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which we heard in this room last week, actually put British industry on the block. I do wonder whether they have fully thought through their policy, because when the statutory instrument went to the Lords, their spokesperson was not clear about whether the Opposition opposed the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Perhaps the shadow Minister might want to say whether that is Opposition policy.”
“I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I hope to be able to respond to them. We heard, from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the Opposition’s clear objections to the emissions trading scheme. We also heard them last week, in a statutory instrument debate about the emissions trading scheme and the future introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. This is clearly a significant change in policy from the Opposition, as they line themselves up with the climate deniers in the hope that they might scrounge some votes back from Reform, but— [ Interruption. ] It absolutely is a desperate measure. The shadow Minister talks about protection for industry. We discussed that extensively in this Committee Room last week.”
“No, the shadow Minister does not. Well, perhaps he needs to think about it a bit longer. The shadow Minister talked about the administrative burden placed on maritime companies, which is of course something of which the Government are very conscious. He mentioned some of the information that would need to be recorded, such as port of departure, fuel use and so on. I do not know when he last spoke to somebody who actually operates a vessel, but a lot of this information is routinely recorded. Perhaps his ignorance of maritime operations is second only to his ignorance of the United Kingdom.”
“Gentleman anything that he does not know, but I want to be clear that we have thought very carefully about this. The hon. Gentleman and a number of Members mentioned the opportunity for decarbonisation. In my opening remarks, I mentioned a number of ways that that could be done, including more fuel-efficient operating practices and various other things. We have set aside £448 million of Government funding to support that, which was announced previously. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet with me to go through more of that in detail and represent the views of his constituents, I would be happy to do that.”
“First, regarding the situation on the Isle of Wight versus the ferry operators in Scotland, one of the key considerations for us was that the population on the islands in Scotland is considerably lower than that of the Isle of Wight. There is also no competition generally between the ferry operators, but there are there are a number of routes operating to the Isle of Wight, as the hon. Gentleman will know very well. The scheme will affect only two vessels, from one operator, on the Isle of Wight: one is a diesel vessel and one is a hybrid vessel. Clearly, the impact of the scheme will be felt more on the diesel vessel than the hybrid vessel, and that is because of the 5,000 gross tonnage limit. I am sure that I am not telling the hon.”
“I looked very carefully at the issues around the Isle of Wight before we tabled this statutory instrument, because those were a significant concern for me as well, and I am happy to offer some additional information now. I am grateful to my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who requested a meeting with me before this statutory instrument was laid. I was happy to have that conversation with him, and I offer that courtesy to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East as well, if he would like to have such a meeting after this debate. Perhaps I can in some way put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest.”
“I commend the hon. Gentleman for his service in the Royal Navy, and I am happy to withdraw that remark. Perhaps there was an oversight on his part in relation to that particular issue. I absolutely do withdraw that remark. On the shadow Minister’s comment about the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man is a Crown dependency, as I am sure he knows, so it is not covered by the scheme. He mentioned the Isles of Scilly. The vessels to the Isles of Scilly are not covered by the scheme either, because they are below 5,000 gross tonnage. The shadow Minister also mentioned the Isle of Wight, and I want to respond to the comments from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East.”
“and learned Member for North Antrim might be surprised to know that there are actually quite a number of things on which we agree, and one of them, for certain, is that the United Kingdom must be the United Kingdom of equals. I am quite clear about that. I wanted to clear up a couple of points about the situation with Northern Ireland. The 50% reduction that applies to Northern Ireland is there to create parity between vessels that operate between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and those that operate between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. If we had not offered the 50% reduction, Northern Ireland would be disadvantaged in that way, and I want to be clear about why that is.”
“I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Perhaps we can go through some of the assessments of the impact of cost inflation in more detail when we meet. Our modelling shows that that could largely be eaten up by normal inflation and normal operating practices, but there are decisions there for the operators to take into account. The hon. Gentleman made some pertinent points about the operators, and we can discuss those in more detail. He also mentioned international shipping through the Solent. Clearly, international shipping is not covered currently by this measure, but it is covered in the EU ETS. Finally, I come to the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. The hon.”
“The fact that this pollution is not observable to the naked eye does not make it any less important to tackle it. These environmental regulations—and the Government’s policy on net zero—are about tackling that pollution and providing a stable and predictable regime so that industry can invest.”
“That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that it was important to us that Northern Ireland was not in any way disadvantaged, which is why the 50% reduction was offered. The hon. and learned Member mentioned Rathlin island in his constituency; I remind him of the 5,000 gross tonnage limit and how that applies. The hon. and learned Member, the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the shadow Minister all made a general point about the cost associated with the changes. There is a cost to not tackling climate change. If operators of vessels were spilling oil into the Solent or the Irish sea, then I am quite sure that the hon. and right hon. Members’ constituents would be clamouring for the Government to introduce regulations to do something about it.”
“Yes, I am very happy to extend that invitation for a further meeting with any Members of the House who wish to discuss the matter. Of course, there has been extensive consultation on this statutory instrument.”
“I have given way multiple times, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. I think it is time I brought the debate to a close. These changes have the support of all four Governments of the United Kingdom, and consensus in advancing carbon pricing policy to include domestic maritime is key to delivering our decarbonisation goals and driving green investment across the United Kingdom. I commend the draft order to the Committee. Question put.”
“The Government recognise the challenge of high industrial energy costs. From April we will raise the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% under the network charging compensation scheme, supporting around 550 electricity-intensive businesses. This year we also plan to review eligibility for the British industry supercharger and the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme. From 2027 the British industrial competitiveness scheme will cut electricity costs by around £35 to £40 per MWh for around 7,000 manufacturing businesses.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for championing the businesses in his constituency. One such business, GS Yuasa Battery Manufacturing in Gwent, is receiving support from the supercharger, exempting it from several renewables levies and electricity network usage costs. This is all part of the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, which will cut costs, boost energy security and accelerate grid connections.”
“The right hon. Gentleman knows that I share his concerns about the ceramics industry. He is quite right that many ceramics companies failed to qualify for the supercharger. There will be a review of the supercharger this year, and I have asked officials to look very carefully at the potential to include ceramics companies in it. I discussed that with the ceramics industry at an event in Parliament this week, which the right hon. Member attended—as, I think, did the Yorkshire brick company that he mentioned. I can also inform him that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will meet ceramics industries in the near future.”
“The Department is driving economic growth by delivering the long-term certainty that businesses need and by supporting the growth of businesses across the UK, including in Lancashire, where the Lancashire business growth hub is ensuring that businesses in Morecambe and Lunesdale have the advice to grow, to scale up and to succeed.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her work in championing small businesses in her constituency, particularly the Electech cluster, where businesses such as Teleplan Forsberg, Like Technologies and Mazuma are working in the clean energy sector. Our clean energy industry sector plan focuses on capitalising on the strengths of these businesses and doubling investment levels across our frontier industries to more than £30 billion a year by 2035. That will directly support businesses in that cluster. I would of course be delighted to come and visit.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing to highlight the north-east’s role as a key part of our life sciences and pharmaceutical industries. She mentions Organon in her constituency. Its Cramlington site was singled out by the leadership of that business at the J. P. Morgan healthcare conference in San Francisco recently. In two weeks’ time, I will be opening Fujifilm’s biotechnology factory in Billingham in my own constituency—a £400 million investment in north-east biosciences. Our life sciences sector plan is backing the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry with £2 billion of investment and our UK-US deal is delivering zero-tariff access for UK pharmaceutical exports.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the British industrial competitiveness scheme will provide a significant discount to up to 7,000 manufacturing businesses of up to 25% of their energy costs. It will certainly help manufacturing businesses in his constituency and across the whole UK. I encourage businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to contribute to the consultation, the results of which we will announce in due course.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so clearly representing the importance of the ceramics firms in his constituency. I heard the message loud and clear from the ceramics industry this week about the impact of energy costs and, as I mentioned earlier, in the review of the supercharger scheme, I have asked my officials to look carefully at the opportunities for including the ceramics sector.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive and constructive engagement on this issue. I do understand the concerns of the steelworkers in Scunthorpe. I know precisely the projects he is referring to; they were not procured under public procurement rules, and the developers and tier 1 contractors involved have followed their own rules and commitments. However, it is the case that this Government want to see more British steel used in both public and other projects around the country, which is a matter both for developing steel capability and, potentially, for reviewing our procurement rules.”
“The changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS authority, improve the fairness of the scheme and increase certainty for both regulators and operators. They will ensure that free allocation continues to provide meaningful support to UK industry while maintaining the incentive to decarbonise and rewarding efficient installations. The amendments to the UK ETS will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They demonstrate that we will take action to improve the scheme where necessary. I commend the draft order to the Committee.”
“The free allocation review consultation ran from 18 December 2023 to 11 March 2024, seeking views on proposals to alter the free allocation methodology for the UK ETS stationary sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage and ensure that free allocations are fairly distributed. The free allocation review carbon leakage consultation ran between 16 December 2024 and 10 March 2025. It sought views on a draft UK-focused carbon leakage list, compiled by applying UK data to the existing carbon leakage list, as well as the trajectory for phasing out free allocations for sectors that will be covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. The relevant responses to those consultations were summarised in the authority’s response.”
“Installations that permanently cease to operate are required to report on their activity in the final year of operation so that free allocation can be recalculated to reflect the cessation of activity. The amendment clarifies that operators are required to report on the activity levels of a sub-installation, whether that is due to permanent cessation, as is currently provided for, or the surrender or revocation of the operator’s permit. The intended changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out consultations that covered the provisions included in the statutory instrument.”
“The instrument also provides for the ability to update the benchmark values used to calculate free allocation for the years 2028, 2029 and 2030 of the 2027-to-2030 allocation period. Maintaining current benchmarks for the 2027 year will allow time for industrial participants to adjust to the changes. Legal change is needed to the free allocation regulation because, under existing legislation, there is no provision to update benchmarks during an allocation period. The in-principle intent is to use the updated EU ETS phase 4 benchmarks in the 2028, 2029 and 2030 scheme years. That will be decided once the EU benchmark values are available, and subject to assessment of the impact.”
“Legal change is needed as operators only classify their sub-installations by a specific benchmark and the corresponding carbon leakage status of that sub-installation. The instrument also requires operators to classify each sub-installation as relevant or not to UK CBAM. Benchmarks are the efficiency standards used to calculate each installation’s free allocation entitlement. Installations closer to their benchmark have a higher proportion of emissions covered by free allocation, rewarding more efficient installations and incentivising decarbonisation. The third change that the instrument makes is to use current benchmarks for the purpose of calculating free allocation for stationary installations for the 2027 scheme year.”
“Using activity data for those years could result in historical activity levels that do not reflect normal activity, meaning that operators would receive fewer free allocations than they would otherwise be entitled to receive. The second change that the draft instrument makes is gradually to phase out free allocation for sectors covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, or UK CBAM, starting over the 2027-to-2030 allocation period. That phase-out will be implemented through applying a UK CBAM reduction factor to the calculation of free allocation and will apply at sub-installation level. To do that, operators will be required to report which of their sub-installations serve the production of goods within the UK CBAM, which will enable regulators to apply the UK CBAM reduction factor to the relevant sub-installations.”
“Such operators will be able to notify their regulator during the second stage of the 2027-to-2030 free allocation application, which runs from 1 April 2026 to 30 June 2026, that they wish to have their activity data for 2020, or 2020 and 2021, excluded. Legal change is needed to the free allocation regulation, because existing legislation would require regulators to calculate historical activity levels using activity data from all five years of the baseline period, or 2019 to 2023. If amendments are not made, there will be no legal basis for regulators to exclude 2020, or 2020 and 2021, data from the historical activity level calculation for any applicant.”
“Sub-installations represent operations carried out at an installation in respect of which operators that receive free allocations are required to report activity levels for the purposes of the UK ETS. We have brought forward this draft statutory instrument to enable important changes and improvements to the scheme. The first change that the instrument makes is to enable operators of installations to be able to notify their regulator that they wish to have their activity data for the 2020 scheme year, or 2020 and 2021 scheme years, excluded from the calculation of their historical activity level for the 2027-to-2030 free allocation period. That is in recognition of the fact that production levels may have been impacted during the covid-19 pandemic.”
“Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. While most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions, operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances for free, referred to as free allocations. Free allocations reduce exposure to the carbon price for those sectors at risk of carbon leakage and reduce the risk that decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by production, and the associated emissions, moving to other countries. Under the UK ETS, an operator is the person or company that has control over an installation. Installations are stationary units at which regulated activities take place.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. I am grateful to you, Sir Desmond, and to the Committee for their consideration. The draft order was laid before the House on 16 December 2025. The UK emissions trading scheme, the UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.”
“On the question of power and the impact of the instrument on energy bills, the important point is that the ETS applies to power that is produced from fossil fuels, not renewable energy. This Government’s policy is to pursue our clean power mission by 2030, which involves investing in the cheapest forms of power available, in onshore and offshore wind, solar power and nuclear energy. The purpose of the ETS is to incentivise that. The carbon price incentivises investment; it provides the incentive in power and in industry to invest in new green technologies.”
“We managed to adopt requests to include ceramics on the carbon leakage list, no tiering of free allocations, and greater engagement with the ceramics sector, which is why we set up the UK ETS working group. My hon. Friend asked me specifically if we could reallocate free allocations from other sectors to ceramics. That is not possible within the current rules, but that does not mean that I am not aware of the issues surrounding the ceramics sector. We can use the UK ETS group to look at ETS issues, but we should also look more broadly at the concerns of the ceramics sector. I look forward to starting that conversation over dinner with my hon. Friend and the ceramics industry later this evening.”
“Possibly one of the main points to recognise is that it is important through the whole decarbonisation process that industry manages to maintain access to its key markets, and clearly one of the key markets is the EU. That is where we come to the discussion about linking the EU ETS and the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism with the EU to enable our UK industries to continue to trade there. Negotiations with the EU started in November, but I want to be clear that they will only conclude in this way if it is in the UK interest to do that. We will continue to consult with UK industry on that matter too. In relation to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, the ceramics industry made three specific requests during the consultation.”
“I will start by addressing some of the specific points in the draft order and then talk a bit more generally about some of the points that Members have raised. I appreciate the concerns on both sides of the House about the impact on industry and the risk, when we are decarbonising industry, of deindustrialisation. I know that this concern is sincerely felt by everybody in this room, even if we might differ at times on what we think the best approach is. That is why we have been so careful to consult industry on these measures, as I outlined in the long catalogue of dates in my opening speech. We have consulted carefully with industry and made sure we have listened to what they have said. Some of the issues here run quite broadly around industrial competitiveness.”
“I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate, which was considerably more fulsome and energised than is usual for a 4.30 pm Committee. I am incredibly grateful, because Members in all parts of the Committee made a number of points, giving me the opportunity to clarify some details of the workings of the scheme. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey, said that it was a very dense report with a lot of governmentitis. I know that she understands the details of this subject well, because she is the former Secretary of State, but I appreciate that it is technical, and it behoves all of us to try to explain as clearly as possible what the draft order means.”
“I think what the shadow Secretary of State has outlined is exactly the success of this policy—it has driven coal out of the system in favour of cheaper power. That is exactly the point of the ETS and the industrial investment. Of course, as we said, we are pursuing our clean power mission for energy security and to lower energy bills, as well as to ensure that we also have green energy.”
“What can be true is that there are both costs and savings for industry, particularly the savings for industry associated with being a member of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will come into force in 12 months. If we link the UK and the EU ETS, that will enable UK industry to trade freely within the EU, as it has done in the past.”
“That is certainly not the case for the steel industry, where investing in green technology results in lower production costs. The Government’s policy framework gives industrial companies a clear investment framework.”
“No, no—I have dealt with that. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim asked me about the issue in Northern Ireland, which is a separate electricity zone. Electricity generators in Northern Ireland have not historically received a free allocation, and in future, the free allocation rules on electricity generation will apply in the same way for the UK and EU operators, assuming that there is linkage. I will return to the point about industry that was made by the shadow Secretary of State, among others. Clearly, the drive is to incentivise investment in industry, and that is precisely what the policy does; that is precisely the mechanism of the carbon price. It is a fallacy to assume that the investment in industry will result in less efficient or more expensive industrial products.”