Starmer to look at report on legality of Drax power station subsidies
Drax power station in North Yorkshire receives millions of pounds a year in direct Government subsidies, in addition to multimillion-pound carbon tax breaks.
Money for the subsidies comes from energy bill payers, because the electricity produced from burning wood pellets is classified as renewable.
Biomass as a clean energy source has long been under dispute and the Government has faced calls to end financial support for companies such as Drax.
Since 2012, the Drax power station has been given £7 billion of green subsidies by the Government for burning 27 million trees per year. That's enough money for five years of pensioners' winter fuel payments
Rosie Duffield
In the Commons, Independent MP Rosie Duffield urged Sir Keir Starmer to look at a report by financial services company KPMG 'before giving another £1 of taxpayers' money to Drax'.
Currently, the subsidy scheme is due to end in 2027.
At Prime Minister's Questions, the former Labour MP who represents Canterbury, said: 'Since 2012, the Drax power station has been given £7 billion of green subsidies by the Government for burning 27 million trees per year. That's enough money for five years of pensioners' winter fuel payments.
'While Ofgem has been asleep at the wheel, a recent KPMG report has concluded that Drax claimed those subsidies illegally.
'Will the Prime Minister today demand to see that KPMG report before giving another £1 of taxpayers' money to Drax?'
Sir Keir replied: 'It is an important issue, of course we will look at the report, but I don't join in her description, we will look at the report.'
A speech by Health Secretary Wes Streeting was interrupted by two women protesting against the continued subsidisation of the power station, on Saturday.
Ofgem found no evidence that our biomass failed to meet the sustainability criteria of the Renewables Obligation (RO) scheme, nor that the ROCs (Renewables Obligation Certificates) we received for the renewable power we produced had been provided incorrectly
Drax spokesperson
The climate protestors, who said they voted Labour in 2024, were both swiftly removed from the Fabian Society's new year conference in London's Guildhall by security.
A Drax spokesperson said: 'Ofgem found no evidence that our biomass failed to meet the sustainability criteria of the Renewables Obligation (RO) scheme, nor that the ROCs (Renewables Obligation Certificates) we received for the renewable power we produced had been provided incorrectly.
'The KPMG report referenced by Rosie Duffield did not come to that conclusion and was seen by Ofgem during their investigation.
'Drax provides secure renewable power to millions of homes and businesses when they need it, not just when the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining.
'The science underpinning biomass generation is supported by the world's leading climate experts, including the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the UK's CCC (Committee on Climate Change).'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer opens door to tax raid on savers
Sir Keir Starmer has opened the door to increasing taxes for savers. Pressed about possible tax increases in the autumn Budget, the Prime Minister suggested they would only rise for people with enough savings to 'buy their way out of problems'. Rachel Reeves is scrambling to fill a black hole of as much as £40bn in the public finances, following a series of policy about-turns and a slowdown in growth. Labour pledged in its manifesto not to hit working people with higher taxes but ministers have repeatedly been unable to agree on a definition of 'working people'. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister argued that they were the 'sort of people that work hard but haven't necessarily got the savings to buy their way out of problems', raising fears that savers could be next to be hit. During Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir failed to rule out a raid on pension contributions and the self-employed. The Treasury opened the door to a fresh raid on VAT after a minister said the Government would leave 'the headline rate' untouched. Ministers have promised not to put up taxes for those with 'modest incomes', but have not said where the axe will fall. Manifesto commitments Labour pledged in its manifesto not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT and promised working people would not pay more. The party attacked the Tories for raising taxes in office but they went up by £40bn in Rachel Reeves's first budget, which broke Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise national insurance by increasing employers' contributions. Rachel Reeves promised not to raise taxes again earlier this year but U-turns on welfare cuts and winter fuel are likely to force her to break this promise. Any VAT raid would fall short of Labour's manifesto pledge not to touch the tax at all, but the Chancellor could extend it in ways that could raise tens of billions of pounds. Options include removing VAT exemptions from some goods and services, or extending the tax to smaller businesses. The headline rate of VAT currently stands at 20 per cent but there are a range of exemptions and exceptions that could be adjusted. One option would be to apply the full rate of VAT to goods and services, which currently attract the tax at either 0 or 5 per cent. This has already been done for private school fees – fulfilling a separate manifesto pledge – in an attempt to raise as much as £1.7bn per year from those educated outside the state system. In 2012, George Osborne extended the levy to items including pasties, but was forced to U-turn following a backlash. Questioned on Wednesday by Kemi Badenoch about a series of potential taxes which could be increased, the Prime Minister said he would not 'write the Budget' months in advance. 'Modest income' The Conservative leader challenged Sir Keir to define what was meant by a 'modest income'. He replied: 'I think of the working people across this country who put in every day and don't get back what they deserve. 'And that's who we're working for. That's who we're fixing the country for: the sort of people that work hard but haven't necessarily got the savings to buy their way out of problems.' The Tory leader then quoted Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said earlier this week that working people are 'people who don't get a pay slip'. 'Millions of self-employed people don't get a pay slip,' she said. 'So are the self-employed next in line for a Labour tax raid?' Sir Keir sidestepped the question, saying: 'The self-employed were the very people who suffered under their watch, repeatedly suffered under their watch.' Pension contributions targeted? Ms Badenoch then claimed the Government would consider levying a tax on pension contributions. 'We know the Chancellor is launching a review into pension contributions,' she said. 'It's as clear as day why this is – it is because the Government is considering taxing them. 'Does the Prime Minister agree with me that a tax on pension contributions is a tax on working people?' Sir Keir replied: 'We made absolutely clear manifesto commitments which she asked me about last week and we're keeping to. I'm not going to write the Budget months out.' A Conservative Party spokesman said: 'Labour won't rule out hitting the self-employed with new taxes. They won't rule out a tax raid on pensions. 'And the Prime Minister says 'modest incomes' refers to anyone without savings, raising the prospect of a tax on savings in the autumn. 'Labour are treating working people with contempt. Hiking taxes is not inevitable – it is a choice brought on by the Government's economic incompetence.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Political superinjunctions put governments beyond the law – these powers must never be used again
In his first remarks about the Afghan leak affair, Sir Keir Starmer declared to the Commons that former Conservative ministers have ' serious questions to answer ' over the data breach. The prime minister was right about that. However, he should resist the temptation to over-politicise the issue, even as parliament and the media intensify their efforts to uncover the truth. Sir Keir has, after all, been in power for a year. While, in principle, his government could have moved more quickly to lift the extraordinary superinjunction, which shut down any possibility of scrutiny of this blunder for three years, we must remember it was the Conservative government that applied for the injunction in the first instance. Sir Keir, a very senior lawyer who well understands such matters, was reportedly 'angry' when he became prime minister and learned of the gagging order. Meanwhile, the defence minister, John Healey, acknowledged the scandal's potential to erode political trust, expressing that he is 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency' caused by the superinjunction. The principal culpability in this tragic fiasco obviously lies with the party in power at the time – it was the Conservatives' mess, but Sir Keir will also need to explain why he didn't order his government lawyers to lift the superinjunction immediately. The staggering cost of the cover-up was beginning to look 'bonkers'. Mr Justice Chamberlain called the statement to provide 'cover' a 'very, very striking thing' and said it was 'fundamentally objectionable' that government decisions about thousands of lives and billions of pounds were made without scrutiny from parliament or the public. We certainly do know that this whole episode, and the treatment of Britain's former Afghan allies, has been shameful. In fact, that would be true even if the data breach had never happened. The Independent is proud of its campaign to secure just treatment for the members of the Afghan special forces who served alongside troops from Britain, the US and other nations in that long, pitiless 'war on terror'. Many of these fighters in the Afghan forces, known as the 'Triples' after their unit numbers, had been effectively abandoned as soon as Kabul fell, long before the leak. There were schemes to offer Afghans in danger refuge in the UK. That was an honourable thing to do, but in practice the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office showed great reluctance to act with any urgency after the British and Americans had scuttled out of the conflict, and many Afghans were left in limbo – hiding in Afghanistan or else in Pakistan, permanently at risk of being deported to their deaths. It bears repeating that these are not 'economic migrants' and would never have dreamt of coming to live virtually on the other side of the planet had George W Bush and Tony Blair not decided to invade their country in 2001. The Triples did not ask for that, but they did volunteer to fight with the allies for freedom. They were promised victory over the Taliban; instead they were left behind. Now, we discover that, without their knowledge, they were placed in mortal danger by the leak; even after it was brought to the attention of British ministers – and long after specific details about their role and their family members had found its way out of the Ministry of Defence and, in part, on to Facebook. Betrayed in the chaos of the allies' withdrawal in August 2021, they were thus betrayed once again, even after the government learned of the data breach in August 2023 and did so little to get them to safety, or even to inform them. The Independent publicly raised their plight three months later, in November 2023, when their jeopardy was even more acute. Following this publication's investigation, the Ministry of Defence admitted their decision-making was 'not robust' and announced a review of around 2,000 applications to the resettlement programme. It transpires that about a half of the Afghan ex-commandos initially identified for relocation to the UK were affected by the data breach. The Triples only found out about the blunder as the legal order was lifted this week. Mr Healey now tells parliament that he can't say if any Afghan heroes died at the hands of the Taliban because of the incompetence, negligence and indifference of the British government. That's a low point. Indeed, there are questions to answer. There will be parliamentary inquiries. The press, at last, is able to try to hold those responsible to account, and the ministers and officials involved will have an opportunity to explain and to defend themselves. Everyone from the member of the armed forces who sent the original email to the wrong people on a computer outside the official network to the then prime minister, Rishi Sunak, will be required to give evidence. So should Sir Keir and Mr Healey, who inherited the problem, and launched the Rimmer review into the current risks to the Afghans. Successive chancellors will need to account for how the cost, amounting to billions, was dealt with secretly. Internal memos and notes of meetings should be disclosed. Ben Wallace and Sir Grant Shapps, the defence secretaries in charge at the time of the breach and later legal actions, respectively, will be key witnesses. Even the speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle and his counterpart in the upper chamber, John McFall, will have to give their own version of events and explain their apparent acquiescence in the suppression of parliamentary privilege, which, as Sir Lindsay himself says, 'raises substantial constitutional issues'. Having a speaker appear before a select committee may be unprecedented, but so is everything about this story. After such a long period of intense secrecy, the details of this scandal are still stumbling into the bright glare of public scrutiny. There will be much more embarrassment and shame to come. Transparency has been restored, thanks to our free press, but not yet full accountability. This scandal shows that once this veil of secrecy is in place for legitimate reasons, it can be all too easily used to cloak terrible blunders and duck scrutiny. There are probably no other such political superinjunctions in force, but there should never be any. The law must be changed so that one of the British legal system's most formidable weapons cannot be secretly abused in this way for as long as it has been. The alternative allows for some future populist-authoritarian government to slide into a Trumpian pattern of absolutism, placing itself safely beyond unwelcome investigation. Nothing remotely like this affair should happen again – and any remaining Triples at risk need to be evacuated. No more delays.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: How Tories tore themselves apart over Afghan leak
The Home Office tried to stop a £7bn plan to grant asylum to 24,000 Afghans because of fears over national security, The Telegraph has learnt. The Treasury and the Foreign Office were also among several government departments that expressed serious concerns about the secret scheme, but were overruled after defence ministers used 'emotional blackmail' to force through the plan, it is claimed. On Tuesday, a High Court judge lifted a super-injunction that had prevented the media from reporting anything about the asylum scheme for almost two years. The injunction also meant that the row boiling at the very centre of Government over its merits has also gone unreported until now. Sir Keir Starmer has said he was 'angry' when he was told about a data breach that led to the relocation scheme being set up under the Conservative government in 2023. Multiple sources have told The Telegraph that the plan to airlift thousands of Afghans to the UK – codenamed Operation Rubific – caused a major row within government, with senior Cabinet ministers objecting to it on the grounds of security, cost and practicality. Among those who raised objections were Sir James Cleverly, who was foreign secretary and then home secretary during the time the row was raging; Suella Braverman, who preceded Sir James in the Home Office; Michael Gove, the communities secretary, and Laura Trott, the chief secretary to the Treasury, it is understood. The row began in August 2023, when Sir Ben Wallace, the then defence secretary, was told about a data breach that had leaked the names of Afghans who had applied for asylum through the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) for those who had worked with the British Armed Forces during the war in the country. Excerpts of the list of names had appeared on social media. The data was accidentally leaked by a Royal Marine who was working under the command of Gen Sir Gwyn Jenkins, then the director of Special Forces. Sir Ben applied for a High Court injunction to prevent the media – who had heard about the leak – from reporting it, and Operation Rubific was put in place to speed up the process of granting asylum to those whose lives were deemed to be at risk as a result of the leak. He resigned as defence secretary the day before the injunction was granted, and Grant Shapps, who took over the role, delegated the task of running Operation Rubific to James Heappey, the armed forces minister. On Mr Shapps's first day in the job, the injunction was granted by a High Court judge and upgraded to a super-injunction, meaning no one, including the media and MPs, could mention that an injunction existed. Minister's 'emotional blackmail' From the very beginning, Mr Heappey, a former Army major who fought in Afghanistan, clashed with Cabinet heavyweights as he tried to get the secret resettlement scheme up and running. Mrs Braverman, who had been attorney general before her elevation to the Home Office, 'got into serious arguments' with the Ministry of Defence, one source said, telling Mr Heappey she 'just didn't believe' that all of the people on the leaked list were genuine claimants. In common with Sir James, she was concerned about the threat to national security if Taliban members or sympathisers who had applied for asylum were brought to the UK. Ministry of Defence sources insist they set a high bar for eligibility, and that anyone who was known to have Taliban connections 'even decades ago' was crossed off the list. However, one former minister claimed Mr Heappey 'had a religious fervour' about the scheme and would 'constantly try to emotionally blackmail people' by referring to his service in Afghanistan and the need to protect those who had helped British forces. A friend of Mr Heappey defended him, saying he had been 'passionate' about the fate of the Afghans, to whom he felt the UK owed a moral responsibility, and that it was 'sad' if former colleagues regarded that as blackmail. Mrs Braverman was also furious at the suggestion that those brought to the UK would have to be housed in Home Office-funded asylum hotels, as she had managed to shut down about 100 such hotels and wanted to trumpet her success. 'Suella basically told the MoD that if they wanted to bring people here, they would have to house them in empty barracks on MoD land,' said one source. Other ministers expressed reservations about housing Afghans on military bases because of the danger that the Taliban might have infiltrated them, and for months there was a stand-off between the departments. In one particularly explosive meeting, Mrs Braverman accused Mr Heappey and his department of being 'totally incompetent', which led to Mr Heappey filing a complaint against her. Mrs Braverman said in a statement posted online on Wednesday: 'In all this disgraceful betrayal of the people by their own Government, I feel only shame. 'I, and a handful of others, fought this, but we failed to stop it.' My statement on the Afghan leak. — Suella Braverman MP (@SuellaBraverman) July 16, 2025 Sir James, meanwhile, was annoyed that the cost of the scheme was being taken out of the Foreign Office's overseas development budget and warned that the scheme was untenable because of the sheer numbers of people involved. In the Treasury, there were concerns about the 'potentially staggering' cost of the scheme. Laura Trott, who was in charge of public spending as chief secretary to the Treasury from Nov 2023 until the general election in July last year, raised objections about the amount of taxpayers' money that was being spent on the scheme, what the final numbers would be once family members were taken into account, and how many of those brought to Britain had genuinely worked with British forces. Ministers were told that if all 18,800 people on the leaked list were granted asylum, the true number requiring asylum would be more than 100,000 once family members were taken into account. In the end, the Government signed off on a £7 billion plan to offer asylum to 24,000 people, with John Healey, the Labour Defence Secretary, saying on Wednesday that being on the 'kill list' did not give people the automatic right to asylum. Mr Gove was concerned about how local authorities were going to find homes, school places, doctors and other public services for so many Afghans and their families. Mr Heappey, one source said, found himself 'in a crowd of one' in high-security Cobra meetings with senior ministers as he tried to persuade them to back the scheme. One source said: 'James had a pretty tough time in Cobra meetings. The other government departments wanted the MoD to have to deal with everything, they didn't want any of it to land on their plate, and ministers were defending their own turf. The Government was pretty dysfunctional over this issue. 'James would respond by saying the MoD wasn't an immigration agency or a social services provider, so it couldn't do it alone. It was all quite toxic.' Sir Ben has defended his decision to seek the injunction, saying in an article for The Telegraph that it was necessary to protect lives. He has also pointed out that he applied for a four-month injunction, and that the day after he left office the High Court upgraded this to a super-injunction, which makes it an offence for anyone to divulge even that an injunction has been granted. The court later extended the injunction. Mrs Braverman, whose husband Rael quit his membership of Reform UK on Wednesday after the party's former chairman blamed Mrs Braverman for Operation Rubific, said: 'There is much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD, both ministers and officials, and the House of Commons is the right place to do so. 'This episode exposes everything wrong with the Westminster establishment. The state apparatus thinks it can hide its failures behind legal technicalities while ordinary people pay the price. I understand your anger, and I share it. The people who have run this country so badly need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Those responsible must be held accountable, and the system that enabled this cover-up must be dismantled.'
