+ it will also encourage older low carbon electricity generators, which supply a third of our power, to move from market pricing to fixed-price contracts for difference
+ this will see more of our electricity generation decopupled from the price of gas, with stable, long term, known prices
7/7
And she spoke of the new plans to for :
+ Electricity Generator Levy will be extended beyond 2028, when it was due to end
+ It will be increased from 45% to 55% to recoup more of the excess returns made by generators due to high gas prices
+ This will fund support for homes and businesses
6/7
She spoke of plans to remove barriers to new renewables investment:
+ Accelerating vital grid infrastructure
+ reforming land access rules and extending permitted development rights
+ making more public land available for renewable infrastructure
5/7
"..., and that meant higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes. I will not repeat those mistakes."
She reminded us of the positive figures we've seen recently around the UK economy. But also of the warning from the IMF that UK growth could be negatively affected this year.
4/5
...to off-set fuel costs and other cost-of-living rises.
She reminded us that "During the last energy shock, the previous government’s package of unfunded, untargeted support saw more than a third of the direct energy bills support go to the wealthiest households..."
3/7
+ calling for a swift and lasting negotiated resolution to the conflict
+ agreeing to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions to support energy and food security
+ maintaining maximum economic pressure to ensure that Russia cannot profit
She reminded us of economic action alread taken...
2/7
The Chancellor has today updated the Commons on the Government’s economic response to the Middle East.
Her full speech can be read at the link below.
At the IMF meeting last week she spoke with finance ministers and struck a I struck a joint agreement with ten other major economies...
1/7
You are just repeating the same rubbish over again, even though I'm telling you wouldn't have been possible.
I've just read someone suggesting this document may not even have existed prior to the recent Humble Address and may have been produced explicity for it (so unexpected by the Cabinet Office)
So I would expect the long term trend to see it fall further in the coming months and years.
And something Labour had said before being elected is that they did want to get the percentage of inactive people down.
It was 22.1% in the last data before they took office.
It is now 21.0%. It has been as low as 20.7% on their watch, in recent months.
It's for people aged 16-64.
So not those aged 65+, but would include any taking early retirement, those who study (but do not work), those who live of other means, who are stay-at-home parents etc.
None of this group are on out-of work/unemployment benefits. But they could recieve other things.
If you do find out about that, please do let me know.
If it's a retrospective document produced to provider a summary of the vetting process, as part of the Humble Address, it's a very, very important piece of the picture.
UKSV files are high sensitive and nothing is usually shared except to the few who need to know.
This file hadn't even been seen by Robbins, who made the decision on all this.
So no, no matter of thorough you are in requesting information, this document would never normally have come to light.
Yes, because of the Humble Address. They have been requesting anything and everything possible, within the law, on the topic.
This document was in a bundle of files. Not something specifically asked for.
It surprised people to see it and read it when found.
Did he say that?
I know he suggested it was nothing to do with Epstien nor anything else we know about.
But not sure I recall him saying anything more about what it was - indeed he did refuse to say anything more several times.
Granted I did miss a few minutes here and there.
2) the document showing the final decision from UKSV was for 'clearance denied' - was this made AFTER the meeting mentioned in point (1). This document had never been seen by Robbins before it was publicly published he said...
Sorry, talking about two final decisions:
1) that made by Robbins at the FCDO to give Mandelson the security clearance following his meeting with the person from the UKSV over Mandelson, where he as told the case was borderline and that UKSV were 'leaning' against granting clearance".
No matter what the PM, the head of the civil service or Parliament said or asked would have got anything more from the FCDO other than all is fine, Mandelson has passed vetting and has security clearance.
You can claim the PM should have done more. But nothing would change the info given to them.
You can disagree that this is what the process should be.
The PM disagrees that this is what the process should have been and so has changed it.
But it's what was in place. No one said anything that the recommendations from UKSV showed a risk. No one would EVER have said that this, whatever asked.
...anyone, even if they ask explicitly, what the general outcomes of the UKSV process was.
I keep telling you this. The FCDO, whatever they were asked and be whoever they were ask would always say that Mandelson has passed vetting, was OKed to be given security clearance and there is nothing more.
They gave it the fullest scruitny possible.
The finer details of the outcome of vetting are never shared.
The UKSV process was considered only advisory by the FCDO and they made the final decision - rightly or wrong.
And the FCDO worked to the idea they would not, should not and could not tell...
Key government business in Parliament today:
Ministerial statement: Middle East economic update by the Chancellor - due around 12:30pm.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Consideration of Lords Amendments. 170 amendments from the Lords will hopefully be whittled down to just a few.
I also think if anything, that Robbins has shown the 'failed vetting' stuff to also be a lot weaker than anyone before today may have thought.
Saying he was told it was 'borderline' and he himself thinking it was a risk which could be managed and therefore why he granted security clearance.
...in a single face-to-face meeting where none of what was discussed was documented during or after.
Even now, Robbins will not tell anyone any details of what concerns the UKSV shared with him.
He stands by the decision that no one beyond him should have known what UKSV told him.
He himself did not have access the full details from UKSV and only knows what they verbally said to him...
And if the PM asked that, Robbins would have said Mandelson has passed vetting and been granted security clearance.
It's been clear today that Robbins would not have ever said anything else to anyone and not even hinted there were risks being managed unless this had otherwise come to light.
Why do you say he didn't need to?
Robbins fundamentally believes he has the legal powers to make decisions against the recommendations of UKSV and tell no one, not even the PM & Parliament about doing that.
How can the PM trust someone who holds that view, when the PM believes it's legally wrong?
... from his wider comments are that the things the vetting flagged are unrelated to to anything which has come to light since Mandelson was appointed.
...be managed.
Therefore he made the decision to grant clearance and ONLY told ANYONE who asked that Mandelson was granted security.
He maintains he did not, should not and could not tell anyone about what the UKSV suggested or recommended.
He has not explicity said this, but the suggest...
Risky yes, but all due process was followed. Robbins says due diligence was carried out.
He also says that the outcomes of the UKSV vetting was a borderline case was told UKSV were 'leaning' towards recommending clearance be denied.
But that he believed those concerns were risks which could...