Tony Lodge: Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair – and the litany of errors that left us dependent on gas imports

22 Feb

Tony Lodge is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies.

Britain and its leaders are learning the hard way. For the first time since the early 1970s, the country is facing an energy cost and supply crisis and – as then – a Conservative Prime Minister is largely helpless as he grapples with the climax of bad policy making which stretches back over a generation.

Whilst Edward Heath in 1972 faced the wrath of coal unions who had been allowed a stranglehold on energy supplies for too long, Boris Johnson endures a far worse situation – Britain’s growing inability to generate and supply the affordable power it needs. This is coupled with a desperate and growing dependence on imports of gas and electricity to keep the lights on, homes warm, and industry working.

The biggest domestic story of 2022 is likely to be energy prices. Forget parties at Number 10, channel migrants, or Covid fraud. The real crisis for Conservatives will be the steep rise in household bills, and the clear and obvious inability of Ministers to do much about it. Expect power company CEO summits in Whitehall, more urgent statements in the Commons and more public spending intervention to artificially fix prices.

On energy strategy, Britons have endured an unrivalled record of bad policymaking since the 1970s. Contradictory plans and missed opportunities have seriously eroded security of supply, affordability and helped drive jobs and key industries overseas. The die is cast for the short term and here is why.

Lessons could have been learned and the right decisions taken in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, but were ducked. We are now paying the price. The right policies then would have shielded Britain now from a creaking system which is wildly exposed when the wind doesn’t blow, and we desperately hold out for the next shipment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as North Sea supplies fall and gas storage remains poor. How did it come to this and what can we do?

Following his mauling in the first miners’ strike of 1972, Heath foolishly rejected a plan to build over 30 new nuclear reactors totalling almost 40 gigawatts (GW) of new electricity generation. The first plant would have opened in the early 1980s, started insulating Britain from high oil prices and helped wean the country off unionised coal.

Surprisingly and regrettably, Heath, the great Francophile, had ignored the bold plan and leadership from France to build no less than 40 nuclear plants between 1965 and 1985, which today still generate around 70 per cent of comparatively cheap electricity. Instead, Heath left the field open for Labour plans to increase coal burn via the 1974 ‘Plan for Coal’.

In 1980, Margaret Thatcher announced plans for eleven large reactors totalling 20GW of new electricity capacity, but only one was built at Sizewell. The then huge oversupply of coal, power generation overcapacity, abundant North Sea gas and a deep recession had together hurt the short-term commercial case for new nuclear build.

As coal wasn’t the answer and the case for nuclear lacked friends, Britain turned to its precious North Sea gas resource. It is this choice which is now hurting and will continue to do so for some time. The 1990s ‘Dash for Gas’ has led to Britain becoming one of the world’s largest gas consumers per capita, both for household use and particularly for the generation of electricity. Over 30 years, Britain’s North Sea gas bounty has been squandered to a perilous state where supply is increasingly now met from imports.

John Major and his ministers were warned during the early 1990s that the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) would be significantly run down by the mid-2000s if the proposed fleet of large new gas burning powered stations went ahead. Michael Heseltine reassured the Commons in 1992 that UK gas reserves would last for 55 years. He was wrong.

Many argued, including the then Chairman of British Gas, that North Sea natural gas is a valuable premium fuel and should not be wasted to generate electricity, where 50 per cent of its efficiency is lost in the process, unlike when used for direct heating or cooking. This argument was lost and gas replaced King Coal, generating over 50 per cent of UK electricity for the first time in 2010.

Britain’s gas overdependency and growing electricity import habit is the problem, and I first highlighted this for ConservativeHome 13 years ago. The focus must now be urgently to prioritise more domestic gas exploration and extraction, stop supporting plans to import more untaxed electricity from overseas and now turbo-charge new nuclear power. The latter should receive the same focused policy support as that enjoyed by those tasked with beating Covid.

This strategy must surely be Treasury-led. After all, when gas is produced overseas the Treasury loses huge revenues. When electricity is increasingly imported from Europe (as a result of the EU forcing Britain to close power plants early), its generation does not pay British carbon or transmission taxes because the power plants are overseas. Britain is offshoring its fuel supplies, power generation, and consequently losing billions in revenue alongside the erosion of energy security.

Between 2019 and 2020, liquefied natural gas (LNG) represented 40 per cent of all gas imports compared to an average 14 per cent in 2017/18. Imported gas pays no corporation tax in the UK, but it is perversely treated as producing ‘zero emissions’, despite it travelling thousands of miles by ship and carrying a large carbon production footprint. It therefore doesn’t face the same carbon costs, as UK producers which means gas imports are effectively subsidised compared to home production. This import dependency could reach as high as 75 per cent within the next 10 years, so new price spike crises are guaranteed to increase in frequency.

Britain’s dash for gas was a medium-term fix based around a once rich but now dwindled national resource – which has led to huge over-exposure to volatility and imports. Everything must now be done to invest in new domestic gas production to help us through, whilst prioritising the transition to new nuclear power with which renewables and green storage will co-exist. We must stop offshoring our ability to keep the lights on and keep households warm.

Edward Heath lost in 1974 after his second battle with the miners, the three-day week and soaring prices. Conservativs should beware.

Tony Danker: Now is the moment for the Government to go for growth

3 Feb

Tony Danker is Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry

For business leaders, the past few weeks have felt like peak politics. But this week has marked a shift back to economics. And it is most welcome.

Yesterday saw the publication of the long-awaited Levelling Up White Paper, with its transformational aspirations. Today there are energy price announcements and an interest rate decision. Economics is coming to the fore once more.

For me, the biggest takeaway from yesterday’s PMQs is that the debate about long term growth has now reached primetime. Here at the CBI, we’ve been banging this drum for a while now. We partnered with the Campaign for Economic Growth at Conservative Party conference back in the Autumn because we wanted the government to focus more on business investment to drive the economy. And today I was joined by the brilliant Robert Colvile from the Centre for Policy Studies at a joint CBI-CPS event to answer the question: are we actually serious about growth?

The UK currently has the fastest growing economy in the G7, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. V-shaped recoveries around black swan events are no time for credit or blame. The downward nosedive is not an accurate judgement of economic performance; and nor is the climb.

The truth of the matter, as set out in black and white by the OBR, is that we’re looking at post-recovery growth of just 1.3-1.7 per cent. For a country that has demonstrated it can do growth at around 2.5 per cent, this is not ambitious enough.

And let’s be honest, without higher, sustainable growth the ambitious, levelling-up goals set out yesterday, from improvements to public services and much more besides, will be all the harder to achieve unless we can get growth going again.

Let’s look a little closer at the bind we’re in – and importantly – how we can escape being caught in a trap.

Lumping more onto the UK’s tax burden – already at the highest sustained level seen in peacetime – cannot be the answer. The evidence is clear that raising taxes stifles growth, and cutting them drives it.

We’re not talking growth at any cost and by any means. And we’ve not lost sight of the need for fiscal responsibility. We’re talking sustainable, long-term growth stemming from greater investment, innovation and productivity.

Just as companies can’t afford not to invest in growth, nor can countries. It’s not just about money – it’s about ambition and imagination too.

And there’s never been a better time to go for growth, because right now we’re at a unique moment: when once-in-a-lifetime events have coalesced to create a burning platform for change.

One of those is Brexit. I am a big believer in the opportunity of post-Brexit Britain. I think it gives us the platform we need to push the UK’s huge economic potential and the freedom to make big bets. It can awake us from the flatlining productivity that took hold after the financial crisis.

Another is the pandemic, which has driven huge acceleration in tech and digital adoption.

And finally, we have the opportunity that flows from our world-leading position on decarbonisation. There is a wall of investment to fund decarbonisation – backed by firms with over $130 trillion in assets. British businesses are begging Conservative politicians to see the enormous economic prizes available go to those who move fast.

All this means this is our moment.

So how do we seize it? By harnessing the creativity and initiative which birthed the Super Deduction, new skills bootcamps and offshore wind investment – measures which spurned orthodoxy in public policy and showcased the boldness and vision we need.

The first step should be a permanent Investment Deduction, succeeding the Super Deduction and mitigating the looming Corporation Tax rise. It would act as a long-term incentive to invest and grow enterprise, with businesses acting across many fronts in service of the nation.

Achieving the Prime Minister’s vision of the UK as a science superpower requires nurturing a workforce fit for the future. So, how about building on the Apprenticeship Levy with a new Skills Challenge Fund to invest in the high-value skills businesses really need.

We also need to get serious now about generating more of the skills we need at home – so we’re less reliant on immigration. Nadhim Zahawi is onto something with his new Unit for Future Skills, examining where skills gaps exist. Let’s supercharge that and build an independent Council for Future Skills. It could optimise training towards future economic demand and recommend visas to overcome shortages in home-grown talent, setting the Shortage Occupation List.

On energy, ending uncertainty on hydrogen and schemes like carbon capture and storage will enable the UK to lead in global green markets.

Meanwhile, let’s build on Monday’s Benefits of Brexit paper by establishing a new Office for Future Regulation to allow a post-Brexit UK to become the smartest and most future-focused regulator in the world, with a clear remit to target competitiveness, investment and innovation.

The focus of this new body should be the big bets for our economy. Set free to be agile, now we are no longer bound by EU-wide consultation and compromise. Proportionate, so that it strikes a better balance between investment and consumer protection. And more dynamic, allowing regulators to act quickly and decisively, as we saw with the vaccine, when the MHRA saw the UK lead worldwide.

This is not all on Government. Business has a key role, and the CBI will be promoting serious growth to firms across the country. We will ask them to increase business investment. In net zero. In innovation and digital transformation. In exports. In skills. In workforce health and wellbeing. And we will gather them in clusters around the country to deliver levelling up the only way it can be done – by the private sector through better skills, jobs and wages.

Business leaders – of all sizes and sectors – will respond because they are serious about growth.

So let’s get serious, together. Let’s unite, creating sustainable growth – the only real answer to our cost-of-living crisis, rising energy prices and high inflation. Growth that propels the UK beyond recovery to a new era of prosperity.

After a disappointing decade for UK investment and productivity, this is our second chance. Let history show that, this time, we seized the moment.

 

David Willetts: If we’re to have less migration into Britain – and more productivity – we must move around more within it

5 Nov

Lord Willetts is President of the Resolution Foundation. He is a former Minister for Universities and Science.

Behind last week’s Budget and the Prime Minister’s conference speech there are deep questions about how Britain is going to pay its way – and hence pay ourselves well too.

In the 16 years leading up to 2008, average earnings grew by 36 per cent. In the next 16 years up to the end of the period covered by the Budget, it is forecast they will have risen by just 2.4 per cent. One reason for the anger and frustration in our public discourse is quite simply that we have stopped delivering the great promise of capitalism – of increasing prosperity for us and our children.

The only viable way to get us back on the path to higher living standards is by boosting our productivity. GDP per hour worked is now about a quarter higher in France and Germany than ours. We ought to be able to catch them up: that is the challenge we should set ourselves.

There is a clear agenda for it in the Budget. Invest in human capital at all stages of our lives. Invest in physical capital with public spend on infrastructure at record levels. And invest in science and innovation where increased public spending should crowd in more private spending too. And, crucially, get business investment growing again.

That is an excellent agenda. But it may not on its own get to the deeper reason for the decline in performance of the British economy: we are not dynamic enough.

The rate of economic change has been declining. Our research at Resolution Foundation shows that over the decade before Covid struck, the rate at which labour moved from one broad economic sector to another was at a post-War low. Similarly, the rate of voluntary job moves in 2019 was a third lower than in 2001. Labour mobility, geographical mobility and social mobility are all linked. We are quite simply not moving enough.

We are anyway going to have change forced upon us, thanks to the need to decarbonise and advances in technology. We ought to be able to use these drivers of change to boost our performance rather than trying to hide from it. That is why we at Resolution Foundation have set up an inquiry in partnership with the LSE into the future of Britain’s economic model.

The health advice during Covid – “stay home” – in a way summarises what has been happening to our economy for two decades. It is a striking contrast with the 1980s when Norman Tebbit famously told us to “get on your bike”. We had record rates of creation of new jobs (and the painful loss of old ones) and record shifts between different industrial sectors.

One clear signal about which jobs to move to was larger pay gaps between jobs. Nowadays, the places with higher pay also have higher rents and as fewer people are owner-occupiers this directly reduces their incentive to move. The 1980s did see rising inequality but, at the same time, there were record increases in absolute incomes – including for the less affluent half of the population.

This poses acute dilemmas for any Conservative. We are the party of freedom, mobility, and enterprise. But we are also the party of community, belonging, and tradition. What is it to be – roots or wings? These are tensions we all feel within ourselves. And we may reach different views at different stages of our lives. Young people need their chance to fly the nest but this is getting harder – with the move to independent adulthood slower and harder.

The mood in the Party and perhaps in the country seems to favour the ties of place. If you were still living in the county of your birth you were 10 per cent more likely to vote Brexit. In this sense, rather paradoxically, it is the remainers who were the Brexiteers. The balance is tilting in the endless debate on whether people should move to the jobs or jobs to the people.

This is why universities – a crucial means of detaching us from the family home and giving us the chance to move on and move up – appear to have fallen out of favour. But the higher education route has long been used by the more affluent for whom the residential university served as a natural successor to boarding school. It is still the case that the more affluent a student’s family, the further their university is likely to be from their hometown.

The Conservative Party owes its long political success to its skill in balancing these conflicting instincts – leave or stay – and needs to find a way to do it now. One way of reconciling them over the past 20 years – migration – is now diminishing. If we didn’t want to move but there were new requirements for new jobs, some of them unappealing ones, then the new migrant came in to plug the gap. We brought them in to the places and occupations which were short of people, so we didn’t have to retrain or move around ourselves. Reduced reliance on them means we have to be more flexible and mobile.

There are other smart ways of resolving these conflicts without forcing people to face anything like the disruption of the 1980s. Birmingham and Lyons are cities of roughly similar size. But many more people can get to the centre of Lyons in half an hour because local transport is so much better. It creates a bigger labour market. There are towns stranded on the edge of major cities outside London which would really benefit from such investment. So this sort of transport spend really makes sense and we got some of it in the Budget.

Next, social housing is a real barrier to mobility. I remember from my time as an MP the appalling bureaucratic hassle if you are a tenant of one association and trying to move to another social tenancy in a different area. Easier and standardised rules for easier transfers would make a big difference. Meanwhile, stamp duty acts as a disincentive for home owners to move as well.

Then if we are to boost the prestige and values of vocational qualifications, we could also provide some maintenance loans for residential training courses. The original idea of the apprenticeship was that the apprentice left home to live with his or her new master. Conscription and apprenticeships have both declined as ways of semi-supervised living away from home. Instead, the university has become the dominant model. Rather than trying to suppress demand for university places we should try to enable other forms of vocational training to offer that residential experience as well.

The 2020s can a decade of renewed dynamism and mobility. Our Economic Inquiry is already identifying some reasons for optimism too. In the week of COP26, the happy accident that our renewable energy in wind and tide are distributed across the country will attract economic growth to those areas. Carbon capture and storage means ingenious repurposing of ageing industrial plant.

There is also a surge of young people into the labour market – the baby boom of the first decade of the new millennium will drive economic change just as Thatcherism rode an earlier tide of incoming young people born in the 1960s. Lots of new workers is a fantastic opportunity to move into new jobs in new sectors with higher productivity and higher earnings. The Conservative Party needs an agenda for dynamism and change. It is what the economy needs too.

Will Gardiner: The promise of Drax – a lower cost, Net Zero future to help level up the Humber

14 Oct

Will Gardiner is the CEO of Drax. This is a sponsored post by Drax.

The stark warnings delivered by the world’s leading climate scientists this summer made it clear that we are “on code red” – not enough is being done to prevent a climate catastrophe. The science is clear; it’s no longer enough to reduce emissions, we need to start removing carbon dioxide (CO2) already in the atmosphere to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The world’s leading climate scientists at both the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the UN IPCC recognise that carbon capture and storage technologies – which permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere – are vital to global efforts to combat the climate crisis.

One such proven technology is being developed in the heart of North Yorkshire. At Drax Power Station near Selby, alongside our partners, we have pioneered and developed bioenergy with carbon capture and storage – known as BECCS. After years of testing and millions of pounds in research and development, we are now applying for planning permission to develop this technology at industrial scale by 2027.

This climate-saving technology will capture at least eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, creating the world’s largest single site carbon capture project. Independent analysis shows that deploying BECCS technology could reduce the costs of getting to Net Zero by as much as £75 billion, saving £85 every year for every UK household, as well as significantly reducing the UK’s emissions and helping ensure we reach Net Zero in a fair and affordable way.

The project is uniquely placed to help level up the North and put Yorkshire and the Humber on the world stage. By converting from coal to sustainable biomass, we have already protected local jobs for thousands of workers, and helped keep the lights on across the UK. Now, we want to go further.

Delivering BECCS at Drax will protect and create over 10,000 green jobs across the region through our UK supply chain. It will generate hundreds of new apprenticeship opportunities, drive investment in green skills, and equip local communities to fulfil the careers of the future.

Drax is an anchor project for the Humber’s green ambitions. Alongside our partners in Zero Carbon Humber and the East Coast Cluster, we can help protect 55,000 industrial jobs across the region, enabling harder to abate sectors offset their emissions, making the region a centre for international investment in climate-saving technologies.

We want businesses of all sizes to capitalise on the benefits of BECCS. During the project’s construction phase, Drax will spend hundreds of millions across our supply chain – with an ambition that 80 per cent of construction materials and services will go to UK companies. This will generate transformational opportunities for local and UK businesses, from large multi-nationals to the smallest SME.

To realise this ambition, Drax will host a series of events throughout 2022 in partnership with the West & North Yorkshire and Hull & Humber Chambers of Commerce, as well as further events across the North, Midlands and South of England. These will help build our supply chain and ensure the project can be accelerated as soon as planning approval is received.

As well as construction, BECCS presents a unique opportunity to support UK agriculture and create opportunities for British farmers. Our partnership with the NFU will develop a roadmap for boosting the UK’s energy crops market. This could deliver some of the sustainable biomass for our BECCS units, as well as boosting the domestic energy crop market to help the UK achieve its climate goals.

BECCS at Drax will generate benefits and opportunities nationwide; but the global prize should not be underestimated either. By delivering the first commercial scale BECCS project, the UK will be in prime position to export this technology internationally – creating significant trading opportunities, jobs and growth. Other countries including the US and Norway are moving at pace, so the UK’s competitive advantage is not guaranteed. The UK must act now to lead the global race to deliver this climate-saving technology.

Drax is driving this project forward; we are signing landmark agreements with our partners, advancing through the planning process, and preparing our supply chain so the project is ready to go. We have experience of delivering new technologies at scale; we have already transformed the UK’s biggest coal-fired power station into the largest decarbonisation project in Europe by using sustainably sourced biomass. Our track record speaks for itself.

But like wind, solar and bioenergy before, every new technology needs help to get it off the ground. We are calling on Government to back BECCS at Drax and urgently bring forward a negative emissions policy and investment framework that will enable us to begin construction in 2024, remove millions of tonnes of carbon from 2027, and tackle climate change while protecting and creating new green jobs. Scaling up BECCS at Drax will help deliver Net Zero, level up the North, and make the UK a world leader in solving the climate emergency.

Benedict McAleenan: We have to go negative to beat climate change

8 Jul

Benedict McAleenan is Senior Adviser, Energy & Environment at Policy Exchange.

I’m sorry to bring you bad news, but we’re about to completely blow the budget. We had planned to stay within no more than 1.5°C of global warming by the end of this century, but we’re about to hit that mark in 2040, if we don’t use all the tools available.

When we go beyond 1.5°C, things really get out of control. Permafrost thaws, releasing methane that worsens the rate of change (this has already begun). Polar ice caps lose their ability to reflect energy back into space, so things speed up again (also already underway). Greater evaporation causes a more humid atmosphere, again raising the heat.

If this was an asteroid heading for earth, we would be pouring resources into a hundred possible solutions, from simple nudges right through to high-tech warheads. But on climate we have so far not used an important secret weapon, and it’s time to get moving.

According to a report last week by McKinsey launching a new ‘Coalition for Negative Emissions’, we need to start deploying ‘Negative Emissions Technologies’ at scale. This are systems that can suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it away. They include some very old techniques and some very new ones. Some can be used now at low cost (like tree planting), but other more technological solutions need investment now so we can use them before 2030 at megaton scale.

Restoring peatland and planting trees are the most obvious and least technical options, capturing carbon in tree trunks and sphagnum mosses for decades or hundreds of years – including, of course, in sustainably harvested timber. We need to start now, because these options take decades to deliver, though they are also the lowest cost in this range.

Moving up the technological scale, there’s ‘enhanced weathering’, where rocks are crushed to encourage them to absorb carbon from the air through chemical processes. They’re then spread over fields and beaches or ploughed into soil. Soil carbonation is also at the heart of another negative emissions technique: using waste to generate gas also creates a carbon byproduct known as ‘biochar’. The gas goes to heat homes or generate electricity, the carbon biochar is ploughed into soil, storing the carbon and boosting soil fertility.

Finally, there are the industrial players of negative emissions. Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) both suck carbon out of the atmosphere and either store it away or use it – although only the former is strictly negative emissions.

DACCS uses huge fans and filters to capture the carbon from the air, and the firm Carbon Engineering already has plans to build a DACCS plant in Scotland. BECCS lets trees and plants do the carbon capturing naturally, but then uses parts of those plants for energy production, capturing the emissions before they escape.

These are not uncontroversial solutions. Greta Thunberg calls them “unproven technologies”, and she casts such doubt because she thinks they are a fig leaf for oil companies. If we just suck the carbon out of the atmosphere, her thinking goes, then there will be less pressure to stop putting it there in the first place. Her solution is something called ‘Absolute Zero’, as opposed to ‘Net Zero’.

Net Zero means accepting that we can’t stop absolutely all carbon emissions by 2050 and using negative emissions to address the shortfall. Greta’s Absolute Zero means no aeroplanes if they’re not zero-carbon, no steel if it’s not zero-carbon, no exceptions for myriad fiddly details that are the reality of life.

Not only that, but this ‘unproven technology’ line is bizarrely luddite. If we accepted its logic, then we would be tying our hands behind our own backs. In climate terms, we’d have no wind turbines beyond those featured in the art of Monet. In pandemic terms, mRNA vaccines were unproven less than 30 years ago. Climate change is urgent enough for us to try the options available.

Yet the UK is a very small player in global GDP and in carbon emissions. Why should we invest in such moon-shot technologies as BECCS, DACCS and enhanced weathering? Why not leave it to the US and China, who both pollute far more than us? There are three special reasons for the UK to lead on negative emissions.

Firstly, this is a massive opportunity in a high-growth sector with the potential to sell our solutions around the world. As the saying in Silicon Valley goes, “the best way to make a billion dollars is to solve a problem for a billion people.” Countries around the world are signed up to targets for emissions reductions and they want solutions including electric cars, wind turbines and, yes, negative emissions. As Andrea Leadsom and Amber Rudd have pointed out for Policy Exchange’s COP26 programme, we have excellence in engineering solutions that we can sell to the world.

Secondly, as Policy Exchange’s Future of the North Sea report noted, we have some legacy assets that make us very well placed to do that. We have an oil and gas industry with world-leading expertise in transporting gases to and from geological storage sites, and it’s currently looking for a new role to play in the world. Not only that, but we’ve spent forty years emptying gas and oil from such storage sites in the North Sea and we can refill them with our unwanted carbon. That’s a facility we can also sell to others, creating jobs along the North Sea littoral.

Finally, we, as a nation, made a big contribution to climate change, even if it has been the by-product of huge contributions to global prosperity and progress. They’ve been two sides of the same coin, so it’s logical that we take the lead again in solving the next part of the problem.

We need negative emissions technologies to stave off climate change, that much is known. The Climate Change Committee has supported that view and Ministers have followed suit. They should stay the course by investing in a suite of these emerging technologies, but also support much greater deployment through market solutions, such as a market for negative emissions, which can eventually work within the UK’s new Emissions Trading System. Without these ‘unproven technologies’, the carbon budget will be blown and the targets of the Paris Agreement will be a pipe dream

Sam Hall: How to help poorer people meet the costs of net zero

6 Jul

Sam Hall is the Director of the Conservative Environment Network.

Last week marked two years since MPs unanimously put into law a target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Since then, the target has been reaffirmed in the Conservatives’ election-winning manifesto, a raft of carbon-cutting, job-creating policy measures have been implemented, and many other large economies have followed the UK’s lead in setting net zero targets.

Our main challenge now is not the overall cost of the target, which is both affordable and dwarfed by the many benefits, but ensuring fairness in how costs are allocated.

While it is certainly true that net zero will require significant new investment in clean infrastructure and technologies, these investments will bring wide economic benefits, notably a net increase in employment, and will cost less as a share of GDP than the damage caused by unchecked climate change.

As we accelerate emission cuts over the next few years to achieve the UK’s more stringent targets for 2030, this will trigger additional investment in building retrofits, renewable energy, and transport infrastructure, which will ease post-Covid unemployment.

Thanks to the ingenuity of British scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs in developing new technologies and making existing technologies better and cheaper, the overall costs of net zero are being revised downwards all the time. And since clean technologies like electric cars and heat pumps are much more energy efficient than the fossil fuelled equivalents, there are likely to be significant fuel savings for consumers in the long term.

More important than the overall costs is how they will be distributed across society and the economy. Many of net zero’s critics highlight the impact of net zero on the poorest as one of their chief concerns. They are right to make this a priority, although fortunately so far negative distributional effects have been minimal. According to the Climate Change Committee, household energy bills have remained flat since the passage of the 2008 Climate Change Act. But we need to ensure that forthcoming technology changes aren’t regressive either.

This distributional analysis is one of the main focuses of the Treasury’s net zero review, which is currently being finalised on Whitehall. But as well as identifying potential regressive effects, the Treasury must also provide policy solutions. To do this, they can look to a number of excellent recent centre-right think tank proposals on how to drive forward net zero in a way that both enhances fairness, and boosts jobs and the economy.

Take critical clean technologies like carbon capture or low-carbon hydrogen, which due to a lack of scale remain expensive, yet are a promising source of green jobs. When commercialising these nascent industries, we should follow Onward’s recommendation and avoid subsidising them through energy bills, since low-income households spend a greater share of their income on energy.

The government was right recently to cut subsidies for more expensive electric vehicles (EVs), lowering the cap for the Plug-in Car Grant so that vehicles with a sticker price of more than £35,000 were ineligible. Ministers should also consider Bright Blue’s recent call to subsidise second-hand EVs, so that low-income people can benefit from this government funding pot too, and access these cheaper-to-run vehicles.

Similarly, as more people switch to EVs and need affordable overnight charging, we should protect people without private driveaways from paying extortionate prices to use on-street charge points. Policy Exchange has proposed a system of price caps for charge point operators in receipt of public funding.

Fairness is particularly important in the drive to retrofit Britain’s homes for net zero, given the scale of investment required. As Bim Afolami has advocated on this site and Simon Clarke more recently, the Treasury should offer vouchers for the most expensive types of insulation, such as solid wall insulation, and heat pumps. Even though a home’s running costs will be lower after it’s been retrofitted, the upfront costs are often a barrier to people installing these home energy improvements.

Finally, if the Treasury does extend carbon pricing to more of the economy, as is rumoured, it should consider giving some of the money back, in the form of a carbon dividend, to low-income households, as the Centre for Policy Studies has argued.

Once these investments have been made and these technologies adopted, our society will be fairer. People on lower incomes who typically live by busy roads will be less exposed to harmful air pollution. The fuel poor, who live in draughty homes, will spend less on their energy bills each month, while avoiding cold-related ill-health.

And if we replace Fuel Duty with dynamic, congestion-sensitive road pricing, driving will be cheaper for people living in rural areas and towns, who after all have few alternative transport options compared to city dwellers. But to realise these benefits, the government needs to help people make the necessary investments.

If we were to pursue the alternative approach of not mitigating climate change, unfairnesses in society would be exacerbated. Low-income households, for example, are disproportionately exposed to flood risk and to the health impacts of heatwaves, according to the CCC, and due to a lack of savings, they are more financially vulnerable to climate-related hazards. Similarly workers in traditional fossil fuelled industries – concentrated in ‘red wall’ constituencies – would have less opportunity to transition into new green industries and could end up in ‘stranded jobs’ as other countries switch to clean energy.

Some will argue that, in the face of these challenges, we should just abandon net zero, but that would be economically foolish, diplomatically isolating, electorally damaging, and much more besides. Others will argue that it’s not the government’s job to intervene to tackle inequality. But since the government isn’t a passive observer of this technological change, it can and should make sure it doesn’t adversely affect the least well-off and instead reduces their cost of living and makes their lives more convenient.

Now that our climate targets are becoming embedded, net zero politics is entering a new phase. Now is the time to put fairness at the heart of our net zero strategy.

Clive Moffatt: The Government should come clean – and explain that reaching the net zero target by 2050 may not be possible

4 Jun

Clive Moffatt is an energy market analyst and former chairman of the UK Economic Security Group.

Back in April, the Government set the world’s most ambitious climate change target to reduce carbon emissions by 78 per cent by 2035 (compared to 1990 levels) with emissions targeted to fall to net-zero by 2050.

Cutting out coal from the electricity generation mix was the main reason why in 2020 the UK was able to slash emissions to a level 51 per cent below 1990 levels, but this had little economic impact and was only made possible by the existence of plentiful and cheap natural gas. The next stage will be far more difficult and costly.

Realising the targets will require nothing less than a complete overhaul of the energy network, the removal of natural gas from the energy mix – not to mention the plans to change dramatically how we move about and what we eat.

Looking at the energy sector alone, there are so many technological uncertainties that estimates of the costs of transition to zero vary considerably, with capital cost estimates alone ranging from £50 billion per annum for the next 30 years (Climate Change Committee) to £100 billion per annum (National Grid). Furthermore, the bulk of the costs in terms of consumer levies and/or taxation is likely to fall on those less able to pay.

What has been sadly missing from the debate so far is a clear and agreed set of policy guidelines and criteria to evaluate policy options and replace advocacy at any cost.

For a start, the UK cannot afford to go it alone and what we do should be based on what others do to meet the global challenge.

Second, there is no point transitioning to net zero if there is an increased risk of energy shortfalls – heat and light – and so the security of affordable supplies must be considered.

Third, the Government’s does not have a good record at picking technology winners and so the market must be allowed to deliver least-cost solutions.

Finally, natural gas supplies the bulk of our domestic heating and power requirements and will continue to have a critical role to play in the energy mix up to and beyond 2050.

On this basis, a slower but more secure and affordable route to net zero is possible and the following 10 action points could form the basis of a detailed policy framework to be announced in a white paper ahead of the next General Election in 2024 or earlier.

  1. A longer and more gradual rising CO2 price to underpin new investment in “green” energy and allow time for industry to become more energy efficient.
  2. Incentives eg tax rebates and/or subsidies to allow heavy industry to cut emissions – based on agreement at a sector or company level.
  3. Carbon equalisation tax on imports – to offset unfair competition to UK industry from imports from countries with less onerous emissions restrictions.
  4. No more nuclear fission after Hinkley C – the costs of large scale nuclear far outweigh the economic benefits in terms of both additional baseload capacity and emissions reduction.
  5. Cut wind capacity target from 40GW to 20 GW by 2040 to avoid incurring massive transmission constraints and system balancing costs associated with intermittency.
  6. To underpin baseload power security of supply, use capacity payments to support the construction of efficient CCGT capacity with potential for carbon capture but not imposed at the outset.
  7. Gas (without CCS), Demand Side Reduction (DSR) and batteries to compete in open cost/reliability based auction to deliver peak flexible supply at key points in the local distribution network.
  8. Evidence to date suggests that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) would increase power prices sharply, The Government should support prototypes pending a more detailed impact assessment.
  9. We will be reliant on imported natural gas for heat and power up to and beyond 2050. So we need to underpin new investment in flexible gas storage – currently less than two per cent of annual gas demand.
  10. Date for outlawing new gas domestic boilers to be no earlier than 2035 and dependent on a detailed welfare assessment of the reliable options available to replace natural gas.

Looking ahead to COP26 later this year, the UK and a very hesitant EU are the only ones among the world’s 18 largest greenhouse gas emitters to have submitted detail emission reduction plans.

So now would be good time for the Government to come clean and “tell it how it is”, namely that for very good reasons – such as technological constraints, security of supply, industrial competitiveness and especially affordability – reaching the net zero target by 2050 might not be possible.

Boris Johnson would be criticised for being a COP26 “party pooper”, but industry and consumers would probably breathe a sigh of relief.

Sam Hall: Conservative lessons from Houchen and Street about how to respond the Greens

11 May

Sam Hall is the Director of the Conservative Environment Network

The dominant stories from last week’s elections were the Conservatives’ hat-trick of English triumphs in Hartlepool, Tees Valley, and the West Midlands, and the SNP falling short of a majority in Scotland. But amid these headline-grabbing results, a new trend emerged: the quiet rise of the Green Party.

The Greens won 88 new council seats across England, including from Conservatives. Yes, they did well in their traditional strongholds, such as Bristol, Sheffield, and around Liverpool, where their main competitor is Labour.

But they also defeated incumbent Conservative councillors across England in places as diverse as Surrey, Sussex, Derbyshire, Stroud, and Northumberland. They won an additional two seats in the Scottish Parliament and an extra member of the London Assembly, recording their highest ever vote share in both contests.

Despite two brief surges around the 2015 general election and the 2019 local elections, the Greens have for decades struggled to break past five per cent of the national vote. But the signs from Thursday are that they are on the rise, and could become an electoral threat not just to Labour, but to the Conservatives too.

The reasons for the Greens’ recent electoral success are varied. Public concern about the environment is at historically high levels, with media and government focus on the issue growing, and climate change impacts becoming more visible. It’s understandable that, as the environment becomes more salient, more voters turn to the party whose defining mission is to save the planet.

Factionalism on the left is undoubtedly boosting the Greens, too. As Keir Starmer repudiates Corbynism, he is pushing some of the party’s more left-wing supporters towards the Greens, who have long supported some of the more radical ideas of John McDonnell, such as a universal basic income. The Liberal Democrats remain toxic to many on the left for going into coalition with the Conservatives. And in Scotland, the Greens provide a more environmentally-conscious alternative to the SNP.

Greens across Europe have benefited from a similar trend. Just a few months out from federal elections, the Greens are currently the highest polling party in Germany, two points ahead of the CDU. Greens are part of the coalition government in Austria, after securing 14 per cent of the vote in the last year’s elections. There was also a green surge in the 2019 elections for the European Parliament, with the green bloc growing from 50 seats to 74.

However, this phenomenon isn’t simply about splintering on the left. Nor is it the case that the Greens are just taking votes off Labour and allowing the Conservatives to come through the middle. As Thursday’s results show, the rise of the Greens threatens both the main parties.

That said, the threat shouldn’t be overstated at this stage: the Greens only control one council, Brighton and Hove (where they are a minority administration), and they still only have one MP. But a response will be needed nonetheless.

First, here’s what to avoid. Counteracting the Greens doesn’t entail copying their policies, which are a bad combination of the unfeasible (net zero by 2030), the unpopular (a meat tax), and the economically damaging (a four day week). But neither should they Conservatives shouldn’t become hostile to the entire green agenda, which is popular with a majority of voters. Nor should they ignore other policy priorities in favour of an exclusive focus on the environment. As James Frayne has argued convincingly on this site, this approach wouldn’t keep the party’s voter coalition together.

Instead, Conservatives should unite behind the strategy that the Prime Minister articulated in his ten point plan for a green industrial revolution, linking net zero to people’s immediate economic concerns. This prospectus has the best chance of binding together the Conservatives’ diverse supporter base and stalling the rise of the Greens.

This strategy has worked well for Ben Houchen, whose tireless advocacy for Teesside is helping to attract many of the UK’s leading net zero investments to his area, from GE’s new turbine manufacturing factory and BP’s blue hydrogen plant, to one of the first carbon capture projects and a hydrogen transport hub. He has been one of the biggest advocates for the PM’s green industrial revolution, including on this site, and was re-elected by a landslide.

The Government should copy this formula in other parts of the country. It should invest in enabling infrastructure, fund large-scale green demonstration projects, and put in place market frameworks to attract private investment in new clean industries, such as battery manufacturing, floating offshore wind, heat pumps, and green steel production.

But while it can unite Conservatives, this approach to net zero is divisive on the left. The red-greens can’t decide if they support ‘degrowth’ as a route to tackling climate change. They debate whether people’s lifestyles must be drastically curtailed, or whether to focus on clean technology. And they are divided over whether to attach radical cultural policies on race and gender to their environmental agenda.

The other main element of the Conservatives’ response should be to implement ambitious but practical environmental policies that improve people’s communities and their quality of life. Here, the Conservatives’ other great election-winner from Thursday, Andy Street, provides a blueprint.

He has overseen major improvements in public and active transport in the West Midlands, reopening rail stations, extending metro lines, putting in segregated cycle lanes, and freezing bus fares. He is showing how mayors can connect up their region, reduce the cost of living, and improve the local environment at the same time.

National government should enable more pragmatic local environmental leadership like this. Ministers could give councils the powers and funding to create and safeguard a new network of wild green spaces (a ‘wilbelt’) around towns and cities. They could devolve more funding to metro mayors to insulate social and fuel poor homes in their regions. And they could fund transport authorities to replace old diesel buses with electric or hydrogen ones, and to install electric charge points along the strategic road network.

The Greens, by contrast, have a poor record of delivery on the few occasions when they’ve been entrusted with office. Remember their failure in Brighton and Hove to arrange the bin collections, which lead to strikes and images of rubbish piled up on street corners. There is a political opportunity here for Conservative environmentalism that sets ambitious targets, actually delivers them, and does so in a way that benefits the economy and people’s standard of living.

The Greens had a good night on Thursday. But by uniting behind Boris Johnson’s green industrial revolution, and replicating the approach of Ben Houchen and Andy Street, the Conservatives can prevent them rising further and can make the environment a winning, unifying issue for the party.

Chris Whiteside: Why Britain’s first new coal mine for decades should open in the ward I represent

23 Feb

Chris Whiteside MBE is County Councillor for the Egremont North & St Bees division of Cumbria County Council, and also Deputy chairman (political and campaigning) of North West England region of the Conservative party.

ConservativeHome readers will know of the controversy over proposals for Britain’s first new coal mine for decades, in Copeland, West Cumbria.

I am county councillor for the division which includes most of the application site.

Almost to a man and woman people in the vicinity are in favour, while almost all the opposition comes from people living many miles away. The most vocal opponents live on the far side of the deepest and longest lakes, and the highest mountain, in England.

Copeland

Copeland moved from the red to the blue column two years before the rest of the former “red wall” seats, but is typical of traditional communities in Northern England which voted Labour for generations but finally lost patience with that party while it was led by Jeremy Corbyn.

When elected to Cumbria County council, I was the first Conservative councillor in history to represent parts of my division. Voters in West Cumbria who elected Conservative councillors like me, and Conservative MPs like Trudy Harrison and “Workington Man” Mark Jenkinson, lent us their votes. We have no more automatic right to their continued support than our Labour predecessors had. Local people expect us to fight harder for them than those predecessors did.

We will.

The historical context

I was a student during the 84-85 miners’ strike. With Iain Dale, I was a ringleader of a campaign to sack a Labour student union president who misused used union resources to support the strike.

I now have more sympathy for comments made to me in 84-85 by students from traditional mining communities – like the area I now represent – than either I or those who made them would have imagined possible at the time. Particularly about affluent middle-class people from many miles away trying to take jobs from a less affluent community which they knew little about and probably couldn’t find on a map.

Woodhouse Colliery is expected to provide 518 jobs and fifty apprenticeships in a community which includes some of the worst pockets of deprivation in Britain. Spending will also boost the local economy and supply chains, on ONS multipliers providing a further estimated 380 jobs.

The facts about the mine

The proposed mine will not produce coal to burn for energy. It is specifically restricted, in the proposal itself and planning conditions, to mining coking coal to make steel, mainly for the British and European steel industries.

If you want more renewable energy, you need steel – It takes lots of steel to make a wind turbine. Britain needs steel for many other purposes too.

Currently there is no economic way to make new steel without coking coal. More than 85 per cent of scrap steel in Europe is already recycled so there’s limited scope to increase the 39 per cent of steel currently coming from recycling.

Ironically, the same Lib-Dem MP who leads opposition to the mine also calls for more steel to be made in Britain. Only a Lib-Dem could so comprehensively face both ways at once as to call for more steel to be made here while effectively working to ensure it’s made with imported coal. Most coal used by British and European steelmakers today comes from the USA or Russia.

Technology will change. There may be improvements which remove need for coal: or in carbon capture technology to use coal without damaging the environment. But the steel which this country needs in the immediate future will be made with metallurgical coal.

Better to make that steel in Britain and Europe with coal mined in an environmentally sensitive way here, than to use steel made with coal from Russia and America, often strip-mined in the Appalachians and shipped over the Atlantic.

Council votes about the mine

Councillors have voted for the mine three times: all three votes demonstrated cross-party support among Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem and Independent councillors. Two votes were unanimous. At the third meeting, one councillor from each of the three parties went against but there was a four-to-one margin in favour including majorities of votes cast from each party.

It’s nonsense to suggest that councillors who voted for the mine hadn’t considered the environment, didn’t know what they were doing, or can’t be trusted to make the decision. Such comments are an attack on local democracy.

The council’s officers went through the proposals in exhaustive detail during a process which lasted literally for years. Each report to committee ran to hundreds of pages describing all the objections and every imaginable issue, including lengthy consideration of the impact on Britain’s carbon footprint. A hundred conditions were attached, including a time limit of 2049, the year before Britain’s target to go carbon neutral. Another condition limits greenhouse gas emissions.

Before voting on the plans, councillors listened to hours of presentations from officers and representations from objectors and supporters.

Most of those who attack the committee sound like the bloke in the pub who, because he’s read an account in a tabloid newspaper of a court case lasting weeks, is confident he knows better than the jury who sat through the whole thing.

The latest developments

When Robert Jenrick declined to “call in” the mine and said the decision should rest with Cumbria County Council, most people expected permission would swiftly be granted in line with the October decision. Instead the council is putting it back to committee for a fourth time.

The objection the council received to granting permission is public domain because the group responsible, South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) – published it on its website.

SLACC argue the decision should be revisited because, since it was made, the advisory committee on climate change published proposals for the UK’s sixth carbon budget.

That document comprises recommendations to ministers, as those who study it will quickly find. Although anyone reading the letter from SLACC’s solicitors who didn’t know better might get the impression that it’s already legally binding, it isn’t.

Fifty Conservative parliamentarians and local government leaders, including most of the MPs representing Cumbria, the mayors of Copeland and Tees Valley, and many “Northern Research Group” MPs wrote to the Leader of Cumbria County Council on 18th February supporting the mine. Their letter made a convincing case that SLACC’s arguments misrepresent the sixth carbon budget.

Conclusion

This saga raises deeply concerning issues. It shows how vulnerable Britain’s planning system can be to high profile, articulate pressure groups even if they have negligible local support.

Anyone who has a serious objection to a proposal should be entitled to have their concerns properly investigated, once. But when similar points are brought up again and again, there comes a point when we are witnessing the attempt to frustrate a democratic decision through delay.

But delay is not the best way to decide whether planning proposals should go ahead. Delay from those who can’t win a democratic vote but use every trick in the book to obstruct what they cannot defeat is the worst of all.

George Freeman: The industrial strategy reforms I led helped to deliver Britain’s vaccine success. Now for the next phase.

1 Feb

George Freeman is a former Minister for Life Science and Chair of the Prime Minister’s Policy Board (2016-18). He is co-author and editor of the 2020 Conservatives book Britain Beyond Brexit.

The combination of Covid-19 and the Crash of 2008 have left this country facing the most serious crisis in our public finances since 1776. Unless we make the post-Brexit, post-Covid recovery a transformational renaissance of enterprise & innovation on a par with that unlocked by Thatcher Governments of the 1980s, we risk a decade of high debts, rising interest rates and slow growth.

We have a truly unique opportunity before us. As a science and innovation superpower, with the City of London now outside the EU’s rules for the first time in nearly fifty years, we can unlock a New Elizabethan era of growth – with Britain a world-leader in global commercialisation of science, technology and innovation. It is what our entrepreneurs have been crying out for. Now is the moment to make it happen.

That’s why I’m delighted to have been asked by the Prime Minister to help set up the new Taskforce for Innovation and Growth through Regulatory Reform (TIGRR) with Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa Villiers.

Reporting directly to the Prime Minister & the Chancellor’s Cabinet Committee on deregulation, and supported by a secretariat in the Cabinet Office, the Taskforce will consider and recommend “quick wins” to use our new regulatory sovereignty to unlock high growth sectors of the economy to drive post-Brexit post-Covid recovery.

Rest assured: there will also be no big report or a thousand pages of footnotes to wade through. We will be crowd-sourcing the best ideas from the business community and the entrepreneurs and innovators who are the engine of our economy.

The Prime Minister has asked me to bring my career experience in business starting & financing high growth bioscience technology companies as well as my experience as Minister in Health, BEIS and Transport leading our groundbreaking Industrial Strategy for Life Science which has paid such dividends this year.

The reforms I led in our Industrial Strategy – launching Genomics England, the Early Access to Medicines Scheme, MHRA and NICE reform, Accelerated Access procurement have been fundamental to our ability to lead the world in developing a Covid vaccine.

We now need to make Brexit & Covid the catalyst for bold reforms to unlock big UK opportunities for recovery & GlobalBritain across a range of high-growth sectors such as those I have worked on extensively as both entrepreneur and Minister:?

  • LifeScience: harnessing the potential of the NHS as a research engine for new medicines, unlocking digital health & innovative approaches to Accelerated Access, clinical trials & value-based pricing.
  • Nutraceuticals: health-promoting “superfoods”, cannabis medicines.
  • AgriTech: smart clean green twenty-first farming technology like the blight resistant potato banned by the EU.
  • CleanTech: new biofuels, Carbon Capture & Storage & digital “smart grids” to reward households & businesses for generating more and using less.
  • BioSecurity: harnessing the potential of Porton Down and UK vaccine science for plant, animal & human biosecurity.
  • Digital: removing barriers to UK digital leadership outside the EU GDPR framework.
  • Hydrogen: using the full power of Gov to lead in this key sector as we did in genomics.
  • Mobility: making the UK a global test-bed for new mobility technologies,

Before being elected to Parliament, I spent 15 years working in life sciences around the Cambridge cluster, financing innovation. I saw time and time again how the best British entrepreneurs and their companies struggled to build business to scale here in the UK.

So often we have invented the technologies of the future and failed to commercialise them effectively.

After several years working as the Government Life Science Adviser, I published my report for the Fresh Start Group on The EU impact on Life Sciences: Avoiding the Global Slow Lane.

Three years before Brexit, the report was the first to highlight the growing hostility of the EU to ‘biotech’ and the increasing tide of ‘anti- biotech’ legislation – driven by a combination of the German Green Party, Catholic anti-science and lowest commons denominator regulation by the “precautionary principle” which was having a damaging effect on the Bioscience Economy and risked condemning the EU – and by extension the UK – to the global slow lane in biotechnology.

The report set out how the genomic revolution was beginning to offer untold opportunities across medicine and agriculture to help generate huge economic, social and political dividends for mankind. Billions of people were being liberated from the scourge of insufficient food, medicine and energy. The main threat to that? The EU’s hostile regulatory framework.

This was seen clearly in numerous case studies. At the time, the EU’s hostility to GM led German-based BASF and major U.S firm Monsanto to announce their withdrawal from Europe in agricultural research and development. My report argued that unless something was done soon, other companies would follow suit, with dire consequences for the UK Life Science sector.

The report recommended a shift away from the increasingly widely used risk-based ‘precautionary Principle’ and greater freedoms around data protection, using public healthcare systems to help accelerate early access to medical innovations, and for the UK to be able to ‘go it alone’ in designing appropriate regulatory frameworks for GM crops.

The UK’s departure from the laws and requirements of the EU provides us with a once-in-a-generation chance to redesign and improve our approach.

This new Taskforce, therefore, is emphatically not another long-term Whitehall de-regulation ‘initiative’. Neither is this is about cutting workers’ or environmental rights that we rightly guaranteed in the 2019 election manifesto.

It is of vital importance that the UK maintains the high regulatory standards that we have consistently championed. In some of the fastest growing new sectors like Digital Health, Nutraceuticals and Autonomous Vehicle Tech, clear global regulatory standards are key to investment confidence. By setting the new global standards here in the UK we can play a key role in leading whole new sectors.

But we must think innovatively about supporting businesses to start and grow, and make the most of the cutting-edge technologies and sectors we nurture in our universities for global impact. For example, why don’t we use our freedom to pioneer new disease and drought- resistant crops, and use our aid budget and variable tariffs to help create new global markets for UK Technology Transfer?

We won’t unlock a new era of the UK as an Innovation Nation generating the technologies and companies of tomorrow with technocratic tinkering. We need bold leadership, clear commercial vision and reforms to support innovation and enterprise. The two go hand in hand. We won’t unlock an innovation economy without an enterprise society. So we will need to look at tax and regulatory incentives for high risk start/ups like the “New Deal for New Businesses” I proposed back in 2010 to drive recovery after the Crash.

This is a once-in-a-generation moment. Together we must seize it.