Tourism Industry and VAT

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is a fellow Welshman. We are having this debate in Welsh tourist week, and we have had a very good week promoting the pleasures that people can experience when they come to Wales.

I pay tribute to the Cut Tourism VAT campaign group for its excellent campaign. If the Chancellor is minded to make an announcement tomorrow and follow suit with what we are asking for in this debate, it would be a lot to do with the long-term work of the Cut Tourism VAT campaign, and indeed, the cross-party support that it has received.

I am very much an opponent of VAT. I believe that, as a consumer tax, it is regressive and hits the poorest in our society, an argument that I shall develop later. I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said, as Leader of the Opposition only a few weeks before the last general election, that VAT was a regressive tax and that it has had negative implications for the economy. I have been consistent in my view and I believe that the rise in VAT in 2010 sucked oxygen out of the economy at a very difficult time and held sectors back, including tourism.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the temporary reduction in VAT that the Labour Government introduced in the previous Parliament was successful in creating the growth that this Chancellor inherited from that Labour Government?

[Albert Owen]

Yes, indeed; it was a brave step. [Interruption.] It is interesting that we are getting heckled from across the Chamber by people who voted to put VAT up previously, but are campaigning here today to cut it. We are not going to take any lessons from some Members here in the Chamber today. I believe, as does the hon. Member for Ceredigion, whom I congratulate on securing this debate, that cutting VAT would give a great example to the industry.

In the past few months, I have spent time in France and the Republic of Ireland, where I have seen our near neighbours benefit from a cut in value added tax.

[Mr MacNeil]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about VAT, but I have to ask him this: when VAT was increased in this Parliament, why did the Labour party abstain on that vote?

[Albert Owen]

I do not speak for the Labour party, and if the hon. Gentleman checks the records, he will see that I do not vote with the Labour party when I think that that is right. I speak for myself. Unlike the sheep in the Scottish National party, who are all herded through one Lobby, I tend to have a little independence of spirit and mind when it comes to these issues. I feel very strongly that the case has been made to cut VAT on this occasion and I will certainly support any amendment tabled in the Budget to ensure that there is a cut. I hope that Conservative Members who voted to put VAT up before but now support a cut will follow their conscience and vote to cut VAT for tourism.

Since 2012-13, there has been growth in tourism right across the four nations of the United Kingdom. It is a resilient industry, but it is the industry itself that is asking for a cut, because it feels that it could contribute so much more in employment and generating wealth for regional economies and the UK economy if there was a cut.

As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, Ireland has reduced its VAT on tourism to 9%. Only last week, I was in the Republic of Ireland. We were launching the new vessel that goes between my constituency and Dublin. Holyhead to Dublin has been branded the new Dover to Calais, and as Dublin is one of the fastest growing ports in Europe, that benefits my constituency. Also, as we are near neighbours, the vessel takes people, who come from places across the United Kingdom, from Wales to holiday in the Republic of Ireland. My colleagues from Northern Ireland will have experience of this. The crossing from Holyhead to the Republic of Ireland takes only two hours. Many tourism operators that book people going to Ireland overnight say that one reason why they are going to Ireland is that the Irish Government have focused on tourism, focused on the brand and focused on how tax reductions on accommodation help the industry.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many hotels that offer discounts and packages such as short-stay breaks, particularly in Northern Ireland, Wales and on the western fringes of Scotland, find that they are impacted by the very attractive bargains that can be offered by their counterparts in the Irish Republic precisely because of the VAT rate?

[Albert Owen]

Absolutely. That is the case I am making, and I am sure that colleagues from the south of England will see the same with France and, in particular, northern France and the Dover to Calais route.

This campaign, as I said, has been industry led. It has been led well by the industry, which has made a very articulate case. However, I believe that the campaign should also be people focused, because a lot of jobs could be created and many of the people who would be affected positively by a cut—

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Albert Owen]

Before the break, I indicated that the campaign had been brilliantly led by the industry, but that we needed to focus on people and get the message across to the great British public. Cheaper and more fairly priced holidays for consumers in the UK would help those with low earnings considerably, because VAT disproportionately affects such people. I believe that VAT at 20% is simply too high. When a working-class family of four go out for a meal, they share a fifth of their bill with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a sense, everybody who goes out for a meal takes the Chancellor with them, because they have to pay 20% of the total to the Treasury. That is too much for many families, and it has reduced many people’s spending power.

A cut in the VAT rate would also have a positive impact on jobs. As has been indicated, most of the jobs that have been created in tourism are low skilled and for young people. I welcome any reduction in youth unemployment, which has been stubbornly high. Those who work in the industry have indicated that one of the first things that they would do if VAT were cut is employ more people, to provide a stimulus to their businesses and to the sector. In my constituency, an estimated 120 jobs would be created, which would boost the local economy by some £3.8 million. The measure could bring huge sums of money into local economies and the UK Treasury in the long term. I understand that it will be difficult to convince the Treasury when there would be, in the first instance, a hit on moneys that are coming into the Treasury—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Owen, you have had almost eight minutes, and I will have to restrict other speeches to six minutes. If you could draw your remarks to a close soon, that would be good.

[Albert Owen]

I misunderstood you, Ms Dorries. I thought that there was no time limit.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

There is now.

[Albert Owen]

There is now, and I will abide by it. As someone who has consistently opposed increases in VAT, I believe that a reduction would help local economies, the tourism sector and the low paid in our society. It would be good for the country and good for jobs. I hope that the Treasury, on the eve of the Budget, will reconsider. If we are going to have a give-away Budget tomorrow, let the Chancellor give way on that important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on securing this debate and on his work to highlight the issue. We have heard some excellent and important contributions that have reminded us of the importance of tourism to UK plc, and the case has been passionately made for reducing VAT below the standard rate of 20% on services supplied to tourists, in order to improve the sector’s international competitiveness.

As we have heard, member states’ discretion to set lower rates on goods and services is limited by European VAT law, but there is a special dispensation for a lower rate on certain supplies associated with tourism, specifically including hotel accommodation, certain restaurant services and some types of admission charge, including charges for entry to amusement parks. Some member states have made use of that dispensation to charge lower rates, including the Republic of Ireland, which introduced a lower rate of 9% in July 2011. We heard a bit more about that from some hon. Members in their contributions.

The campaign is long-running. This is the second debate on the topic in which I have taken part; the previous one took place almost exactly a year ago, ahead of last year’s Budget, and was secured by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), from whom we have just heard.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion made a powerful opening speech focused partly on his constituency and the impact that a VAT reduction could have on the Welsh economy. He also made the point about a potential link between a VAT cut and economic growth. I take slight issue with his assertion that the Labour Opposition have not been robust in our approach to this matter; we have been robust, but unfortunately the answer that we have arrived at is similar to the Government’s rather than being the answer that he and others hoped for. Those hoping for a different answer from us and the Government include members of our own party; I acknowledge the role of Labour Back-Bench Members in the campaign, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for—is it Ynys Môn?

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend. I hate to get people’s constituency names wrong, so I am glad to have got it right on this occasion. He made the point that it is Welsh tourism week, and Welsh Members of Parliament from various parties have been well represented in this debate. I recognise his long history of campaigning on this issue, and particularly his focus on the number of jobs and the amount of economic growth that such a change could create in his constituency and the Welsh economy as a whole. I fully expect him to continue lobbying Labour colleagues and a future Labour Treasury on the issue, as he has done alongside others throughout this Parliament, but I am afraid that I will disappoint him and other hon. Members throughout the House once again by not making a commitment that the next Labour Government will reduce VAT for the tourism sector in the way that they envisage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman leads me to a different debate on the VAT treatment of golf clubs, which I am sure he will understand is a matter of some complexity and indeed of some litigation, too. So, Ms Dorries, I hope you will forgive me, but I will not be too diverted by the particular point that he has put on the record.

In the UK, we apply a zero rate of VAT to food, newspapers and books, and passenger transport. The UK also refunds VAT incurred by many world-famous museums and galleries, making them free to visit for all. In addition to the sector-specific reliefs, the UK’s VAT registration threshold is the highest in the EU, meaning that much tourist accommodation and many attractions do not have to charge any VAT to their customers.

As I have said, Ministers from both the Treasury and DCMS have discussed the Cut Tourism VAT campaign, and recently I have both met and engaged in correspondence with campaigners. VAT raises more than £100 billion a year, which has been critical in enabling us to manage the UK economy through tough economic times, and the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that reducing the rate of VAT to 5% for catering services, such as the supply of meals, snacks and drinks sold by restaurants, pubs, cafés and canteens, would cost the Exchequer £10 billion per year. Similarly, a cut in VAT to 5% for accommodation would have an estimated cost of around £2 billion a year to the Exchequer. I do not have to remind hon. Members that those costs would have to be met either by increasing other taxes, which may well have an adverse effect on growth and jobs elsewhere in the economy, or by increasing borrowing. That would risk raising interest rates, which would undermine our hard-won recovery and would have an adverse impact on families and small businesses.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister made the comparison with the Republic of Ireland, saying that we have had a comparable increase in the number of people visiting this country. Does he have any comparable figures from the Republic of Ireland that show the boost to the tourism sector there, and if so, is he taking them into account when he talks about the extra revenue that has come into the Irish Exchequer?

[Mr Gauke]

The point that I am making is that the number of tourists in both countries has increased at largely the same rate, at a time when one of them has reduced VAT and the other has not. Of course, these matters can be somewhat complex and there are many factors to consider, and when it comes to tourism matters, and particularly matters affecting in-bound tourists, we should not forget the importance of the exchange rate. It is very significant and, of course, recently the exchange rate has gone in different directions.

Low Carbon Energy Generation

Albert Owen Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Yeo]

I apologise. I made the same mistake last time my hon. Friend was responding to such a debate, but I am delighted to see him and I know that he will give us a robust response to any points raised.

I stress that my commitment to low carbon energy goes back more than 20 years. When I served in John Major’s Government as a Minister in what was then the Department for the Environment, among other things I dealt with climate change, which in 1993 was much less understood or even talked about. If someone mentioned climate change at a social occasion, people would look at them as though they were slightly strange. However, it did not take me long to be convinced that climate change was occurring—the scientific evidence was powerful even then—and that the changes we were observing were caused at least in part, and in my view in substantial part, by the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the past 200 years, which was a result of man-made activity and the industrial revolution in particular.

As I recall, in the 1990s the scale of the problem was much less certain. Today, the need for substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is widely, even if not universally, accepted. As we approach the Paris conference of parties at the end of the year, the world’s attention will be increasingly focused on how we can achieve a more rapid decarbonisation of our economies.

Last November we had the historic joint announcement in Beijing by President Obama and President Xi of China in which they committed to cut emissions. Such a commitment would have been completely unthinkable even three years ago: for the US President to say what he did and for the Chinese to say that their emissions would peak on a date not later than 2030 simply could not have happened. In my judgment and experience, for the Chinese to say publicly that something will happen not later than 2030 means that they are absolutely certain it will happen well before that. I warmly welcome the greater determination of the US Administration to engage with this issue, which is still extremely controversial in parts of the United States.

Here at home we had an historic announcement this month. The three leaders of the major parties united in a public joint commitment to continue to take action to tackle climate change. I do not recall any other major political issue being addressed in quite the same unanimous way just two months before an election. I welcome both those important political developments.

Equally important is the transformation in business’ attitude. Twenty years ago, much of industry was reluctant to acknowledge the need to engage in finding solutions to climate change. It felt that such demands for reduced dependence on fossil fuels were a threat to their business models. Today, by way of contrast, in many parts of the world business leaders are ahead of policy makers in recognising both the urgency and the scale of the need to move away from models that are dependent on fossil fuel consumption.

I warmly congratulate the Government on confirming the fourth carbon budget for the 2023-27 period. That challenging budget, which was set four years ago, was reviewed last year and, to the coalition’s enormous credit, it confirmed it. I am sure that in private, parts of Whitehall argued strongly for a dilution of those targets, but they were confirmed.

I also warmly congratulate the European Union. That is not something Conservative colleagues frequently do, but its recent, excellent decision, supported by the UK, to adopt a cut in greenhouse gas emissions of 40% for its 2020 target was at the upper end of aspirations. That is good for two reasons. First, it sets a challenging figure that will force businesses and consumers across the EU to think about how they can help achieve it.

Secondly, it is a rational target. By setting an overall target for a cut in emissions, the need for any subsidiary targets is largely removed. I have always been concerned about the artificial imposition of targets for the proportion of energy that comes from renewable sources. They are not the right way forward; it is up to member states to decide how much they want to use renewables and other technologies. The European Union achieved a good outcome.

Achieving the UK domestic target, which is enshrined in law, and the EU target will require in particular substantial decarbonisation of the electricity generation industry. We have the technology that makes that possible; the question is whether we are willing to adopt it. In effect, a transformation must take place in the energy industry in the next 15 to 20 years. Because it has one of the longest investment cycles of any industry, we cannot leave decisions for another five or 10 years.

The decisions we make in the next two or three years—before the end of this decade—will have a huge and material impact on what happens later on. In effect, those decisions will determine at what cost the decarbonisation of UK electricity generation will be achieved. If we get those decisions wrong and we lock ourselves into too much dependence on fossil fuels, we will be forced into making emergency, very expensive changes in the late-2020s and early-2030s.

This debate is about how to decarbonise electricity generation, and I want to start with the nuclear industry. I warmly welcome the fact that, broadly speaking, there is bipartisan political consensus that the UK needs a nuclear component in its energy industry. The latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that even now, following the shutdown of a couple of EDF’s reactors, nuclear still provides roughly a fifth of our electricity, so it is a substantial component. Nuclear, as supporters such as me constantly remind people, provides reliable, base load, low carbon power.

I do not want to turn this into too partisan an occasion, but there was a slightly wasted decade under the previous Labour Government during which nothing much happened on nuclear. However, the bullet has now been bitten and the decision to go ahead first with Hinkley Point was supported in all parts of the House—even the Liberal Democrats supported that, which showed a welcome change of heart. Unfortunately, the implementation of the decision to go ahead with Hinkley Point is proving to be tortuous and slow. I therefore commend the Government’s willingness—in fact, they have been positively welcoming—to perhaps have a foreign investor as the minority partner in Hinkley. I trust that the final investment decision on Hinkley will not be delayed much further, and I hope the Minister will give us an update on progress because many of us have been getting concerned. The timetable for this project has already slipped considerably, and it would be a huge relief to many people if we thought that final investment decision would be signed off imminently.

Of course, the future of nuclear is not just about Hinkley. It is the first step, but other projects are within sight, and I believe that gives Britain the chance to lead a European nuclear renaissance. We have huge advantages in this country, such as the political consensus to which I have referred, and the fact that our regulator is probably best in class; it enjoys universal respect. One reason why the accident at Fukushima four years ago did not derail progress on nuclear power in this country was that people trust the Office for Nuclear Regulation. In the wake of Fukushima, Mike Weightman’s report reassured people that such an accident could not occur here and the circumstances of it could not be reproduced here. That has helped to create in the UK a public opinion that is more supportive of nuclear power than that in many other countries. Interestingly, people who live closest to nuclear power stations are often the strongest supporters; they recognise that nuclear is a clean, reliable and safe technology that provides a decent number of well-paid jobs.

The interest that other countries are showing in the UK market reflects those circumstances. We now have interest from the Chinese, South Koreans, Japanese, Americans and Russians; they would all like to be here in the UK nuclear market. Some of them see the UK as a good starting point for the rest of Europe. Many of them will feel that going through and getting approved by the UK’s generic design assessment process is an imprimatur—a mark of approval—that would be useful to their technologies in other markets. Britain should welcome and take advantage of that interest. There is something here we can exploit and perhaps even use to gain a bigger share of the supply chain, with resulting benefits for our economy.

Nuclear clearly ticks the security of supply and cutting carbon emissions boxes, but the industry still has some work to do on the third aim of energy policy: affordability. The questions about cost are a work in progress. I am confident that there are ways of cutting the cost of nuclear. The nuclear industry, rightly, has very demanding safety requirements imposed on it. If the same requirements were applied to some other energies, their impact would be enormous. If the coal industry, for example, had ever had to cope with the safety demands made on the nuclear industry, it would have struggled to survive in the way it has.

However, we must be mindful of the importance of value for money. In this country, we are often supportive of first-of-a-kind technology. It is interesting, because we have a great record and history of innovation and research. However, there is a question mark over whether first-of-a-kind technology will be the cheapest. If nuclear is to roll out extensively, as I hope it will, and continue to supply a significant proportion of UK electricity generation capacity, we have to consider whether technologies that have been tried and tested in other countries first—in a home market—may then be able to offer us something.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Hinkley, of course, is going with technology that has yet to be proven. In my constituency, the Hitachi project is using reactors that have worked elsewhere and have been upgraded. That is relatively new to this country, but a rigorous process has been gone through. The fact that we have two different types bodes well for the future; we cannot put all our eggs in one nuclear basket, so to speak.

[Mr Yeo]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he will enlarge on that point when he speaks in the debate, should he catch your eye, Mr Brady—there does not appear to be overwhelming competition for that. However, it is an important point that we need to bring out in the debate about nuclear. I welcome the fact that there are competing technologies that want to get started in the UK, but in deciding which ones we might “go nap” on, we need to focus on value for money. There will perhaps be an opportunity to choose between a number of them, and those that have been tried and tested elsewhere first may have a cost advantage that we should not be afraid of identifying.

Let me move on to renewables, on which there has been excellent progress since 2010. In stimulating new investment in renewables, the regime established by the electricity market reform process and all the accompanying legislation, which some of us have laboured for many hours to improve, is now one of the best in the world from the point of view of investors. Today’s news about the contracts for difference allocations confirms that. There is a lot of interest in investment in renewables here in the UK, and I warmly welcome the success of the CfD regime.

There is, however, a clearly topical issue in this regard that relates directly to my concerns about value for money. The strike prices announced today remind us—much more clearly than the previous, somewhat opaque renewables obligation certificates system ever did, certainly to the layman—of the relative costs of different renewables technologies. Of course, it is great news for consumers that the cost of solar is falling and the strike price is now significantly lower. The rapid and considerable fall in the cost of solar is partly a reflection of the enormous expansion of the solar industry in China, and that has had direct benefits for British consumers. It is now clear that solar can reach grid parity before long, even in this climate.

I am also delighted that today’s announcement makes it clear that a significant amount of new capacity will be provided by onshore wind. I am aware that it is an extremely controversial technology, particularly among many of my hon. Friends, but as we can see today, the truth is that onshore wind offers good value for money, relatively speaking. Of course, there are some—perhaps many—places in which onshore wind turbines are simply unacceptable, for environmental and other reasons, but I would regret it very much if, as a matter of policy, we turned our back on onshore wind altogether. That would turn out to be an expensive mistake, because even with prices for offshore wind falling—again, I welcome the strike prices announced today—onshore wind remains substantially cheaper.

My anxiety about offshore wind is that I do not see the potential for the huge fall in cost that occurred with solar. A large part of the cost of offshore wind is in the installation process of planting and anchoring a turbine in deep and rough waters. There may be a limited number of days on which the process can even be carried out, and the cost of the equipment needed on site is very high. That places a limit on the potential further reduction in the cost of offshore wind. I hope it will come down somewhat—I am sure it will—but I do not envisage a dramatic collapse in cost.

[Mr Yeo]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not suggesting that we should rule out offshore wind, but I am suggesting that we should be mindful of the fact that at the moment it requires a much bigger subsidy than some of the other renewable technologies, and we need to be hard-headed about what proportion of our available resource we devote to it.

Britain is of course the leader on offshore wind worldwide, so we have already achieved a great deal. Interestingly, there are some relatively shallow waters in Guangdong province in south-eastern China, and quite a big push is being made on offshore wind there as well. That may help the process of bringing the price down. Offshore wind will remain an important part of the energy mix, but I am concerned to ensure that we do not allocate too much of the resource available through the levy control framework to offshore wind.

Last year, we had an announcement about the final investment decision enabling contracts, which I think were announced last April and used up just over half the available resource under the levy control framework. A large chunk of that was allocated under contracts that were at higher prices than those today. Things are always easier with the benefit of hindsight, but looking back, I think that in our anxiety to get the process under way, we may have gone a bit further than we needed to at that early stage and are locked into some relatively expensive contracts. Be that as it may, the benefits of competition and the continuing fall in costs are reflected in today’s strike prices. I therefore urge the Government to be as technology-blind as possible in the future. They should leave local objections to individual proposals or projects to be resolved through the planning system, and try to help the best value for money technologies to continue to cut costs and to flourish.

I have already mentioned that I think that solar will reach grid parity. I think that onshore wind also has the potential to reach grid parity, and if that happens and a local community are happy to see some turbines in their neighbourhood, why should they not be allowed to construct them?

Let me move on to gas, which is not everyone’s idea of a low carbon technology, although compared with unabated coal, it certainly is a lower carbon technology. The problem for Britain with gas is that our reserves are running down, so we are importing a great deal of gas. Luckily, a lot of it comes from our friendly neighbour, Norway, and we are not dependent to any meaningful extent on Russian gas for our consumption. However, we are importing a lot of liquefied natural gas. Interestingly—this came out in the debate that we had a few weeks ago on what was then the Infrastructure Bill—David MacKay’s report in September 2013 pointed out that net greenhouse gas emissions from imported LNG are actually higher than those from shale gas extracted by fracking, so if we continue to use large amounts of imported LNG instead of exploiting what may be significant domestic reserves in the form of shale gas, using fracking, which my Select Committee has reported on twice and regards as potentially a safe technology, we are locking ourselves into a slightly higher emission pattern.

I believe that, no matter what, in the next 15 to 20 years gas will remain an important part of our energy mix. It is completely unrealistic for people to assume that we can get by without consuming a great deal of gas, so we should now press on with exploiting our shale gas reserves. To do that, or even to determine how great those reserves may be, we need to start drilling. I regret the fact that there appears to be continued delay, caused in part by local opposition, to embracing that opportunity.

Britain could be the leader in Europe on shale gas. If we get on with it now, we could write the European rulebook on shale gas. There would be benefits for contractors, supply chain companies and others. There would be an economic advantage for the UK if we delayed no further and pressed on with shale gas, as other countries would then follow our lead. They would overcome their current caution and follow us down the shale gas route. I therefore hope that we will not miss that opportunity. It is just as unrealistic to assume that we can do without lots of gas in the next 15 years as it is to assume that if we close down all our nuclear power stations, they can be replaced by low carbon renewables.

Of course, the lowest carbon energy of all is the energy that we do not use. In this context, I again urge the Government to promote demand-side response. There is still a great deal of misunderstanding about demand-side response. Many people think that it means imposing power cuts on consumers without notice and against their will. It means nothing of the sort. Demand-side response today involves harnessing the latest technology to facilitate voluntary cuts in consumption at peak periods by consumers who are paid for their ability to switch off their power at very short notice. The prize, if we embrace demand-side response, is enormous. It means that we can cut the total electricity generating capacity that has to be maintained. At the moment, we have to have high levels of capacity available even though it might be used only for a few days in the whole year. That is an incredibly wasteful arrangement. If we have a vibrant demand-side response sector, we will not have to have so much capacity. Every consumer will benefit from that, because at the moment every consumer is subsidising capacity that is scarcely ever used.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, marine technology is underdeveloped. If we had tidal, we could have greater control. In different parts of the country, the tides would be producing different types of electricity. We on the Committee on Energy and Climate Change looked at that, but not in enough detail. The Government need to look seriously at developing not just offshore wind, but the marine technology of tide and wave.

[Mr Yeo]

I agree, and I am glad that Britain is at least a world leader in research on some of the marine technologies. It is welcome that we are also, I believe, going to go ahead with experimental tidal lagoons in the west country. The potential from those is enormous, but it would be greatly facilitated if we embraced more demand-side response. It would also, of course, be greatly enhanced if our research on storage were successful in finding cheaper ways of storing electricity. That is another very urgent and hitherto somewhat overlooked area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, of which I am a member. I was impressed by his very competent speech, and equally impressed by the fact that he delivered it from the modern technology of an iPad. He is the moderniser of the Conservative party, in many ways. I am pleased to have a quality Front-Bench team on both sides of the Chamber; the Minister and shadow Minister certainly know their brief. In addition, the Minister knows my constituency, so he is familiar with the places that I will talk about. I look forward to knowledgeable winding-up speeches from them.

I come to the debate from a similar background to that of the Chair of the Select Committee, who has just spoken eloquently about energy matters. Energy security and food security are issues that successive Governments have taken seriously, and which they must take even more seriously. In the first Queen’s Speech debate of this Parliament, I indicated that I would concentrate on two subjects during this Parliament: energy and energy security, and food farming and food security. I think that they will be dominant features of future debates.

On climate change, there are various similarities between my views and the hon. Gentleman’s. I have studied the matter for some time. The first job I ever had was to be a galley boy on an oil tanker, just after the middle east crisis. I remember the debates that took place at the time about oil sanctions and the conflict in Israel, and their global impact. We have learned nothing since then. At the time, we were talking about greater security, but when we had a windfall of oil and gas we more or less squandered it. We did not invest in some of the technologies that we are about to invest in, and that we have invested in during recent years. I believe that that was a wasted opportunity.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that this Government are the greenest ever. For many of the things that the Government have delivered, the consents were arranged by the previous Government. A lot of the hard work was done in the Climate Change Act 2008, and things such as the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariffs were the work of the previous Government. It is important to note that a consensus was built between the main parties at the time so that we could deliver continuity on such long-term projects.

There have been problems. I remember that when I arrived in the House in 2001, we had energy review after energy review, and nuclear was the big issue that split the Labour Government. It split the Opposition as well, and I remember the current Prime Minister hugging huskies in one of the colder regions of the world, trying to embrace Greenpeace and being very anti-nuclear, to the extent of thinking that it would be the last resort. Nuclear is now the Government’s flagship, and I am pleased about that change. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is another convert to the cause, which I welcome. I remember debating the subject with him when I first came to the House, and not only was he against nuclear but his party was never going to go down that road, yet we are now moving in the right direction and building consensus.

The low carbon economy has great potential for creating jobs, boosting GDP and making us a world leader in many technologies. I am pleased that there is now common ground for an energy mix. I say this in most energy debates, but I am unashamedly pro-nuclear, pro-renewable and pro-energy efficiency. I see absolutely no contradiction in holding those three views. We need the base load that nuclear can provide, along with clean coal and gas, and we need the flexibility that renewables give us. The hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned peak demand. When we come down from peak demand, we must be able to switch off some of our technologies so that the right supply goes through the grid transmission system. We need that balance and, of course, we need to reduce use through energy efficiency measures to curb emissions. I welcome the progress on that over the past 10 or 15 years.

I am a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. In this Parliament, we have made an important contribution to shaping the debate on energy. The Committee has held inquiries into various energy sources, from marine technology to shale gas. As the Committee’s Chair indicated, we held an inquiry into shale gas early in the Parliament, and in 2011 encouraged the Government to make progress. I am afraid that the Government’s initial response was not positive, and here we are again saying that nuclear is a flagship and the way forward. We are shaping the debate in many ways. We have considered prices and the future affordability of energy for domestic consumers and businesses. We have scrutinised the profits of the energy companies, which was positive. We also considered the issues of fuel poverty. We have done a good job. All those inquiries have been topical and interesting, and the public understand their importance.

All parties in the House can agree on the need for stability and certainty on energy policy. That is what businesses and consumers want, and politicians need to shape a policy whereby we can offer such certainty for investors, whatever technology we are talking about. We can benefit from creating a thriving low carbon economy through energy generation. A low carbon economy will go through a number of phases. Importantly, today we are talking about energy generation, but there is also the phase of surface transport, of cars and trains, which are hugely important for the future. How will we carry goods and people across the United Kingdom efficiently not only in terms of speed and time but in terms of energy? We will need to move away from diesel and petrol towards electricity, which is a huge task. We also need to consider sea transport and the built environment. This is phase 1 of a long-term plan to decarbonise our economy, and there will be important economic decisions that create benefits.

The debate over the past five or six years has been interesting to say the least. Unfortunately, it has been hijacked by certain newspapers and different wings of the print media, which have shaped and coloured some of the political debate in the House. That is unfortunate because the consensus between the previous Government and the then Opposition, and between the current Opposition and the coalition, has been good for providing the stability and certainty that is needed. We tend to react, and it is easy to be anti something. I represent a constituency that has nuclear energy, early onshore wind and the potential for biomass and marine technology. People write to me who are anti each of those things, which it is very easy to be. We have to be sensible and have a balanced, mixed energy policy.

We need to take the public with us, and the House needs to show leadership and send the right signals to business and consumers. As we build, energy security will build a better economy with high-skilled jobs. My constituency is an island, and we have run on the “energy island” label. We have done many proactive things. The nuclear power station, which has been operable since 1971, is the core. Before that, there was a huge construction phase on which my father worked. He was very much in favour of nuclear power because, in the 1960s and 1970s, he was given the impression that, as we had cheap gas, oil and nuclear energy, electricity would be so cheap that it would be difficult to meter. That has not come to fruition, of course, but nuclear has provided a stable base load. Nuclear has been important in providing safe generation, jobs and skills. We were once the world leader, but we have let that slip.

I slightly disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who said that the previous Government did nothing. Very little was done in the 1980s and 1990s, and that continued into the noughties, too. Privatisation was framed on gas and electricity, and nuclear was difficult for the Government to sell. There was a lack of enthusiasm for reinvesting in and updating the technology. Because the technologies, such as magnox, were bespoke, it was difficult to move forward, so there was a phase when there was little investment. The planning system was problematic, too. We have resolved many of those things and, again, much of the spadework was done by the previous Government. I applaud this Government for proceeding with large infrastructure. There is a good planning system for such large projects.

On the island of Anglesey, the energy island, we not only have nuclear. We have a plan for an eco-park, at the core of which will be a 300 MW biomass generator. The vast majority of that electricity will go into the national grid, with the waste from the generator and from a fish farm being used to grow plants. The eco-park, which will be self-contained, will also have a distribution centre. There will be an opportunity for local direct grid investment, too. Exciting ideas are coming from low carbon energy development.

The Horizon nuclear project at Wylfa Newydd, or Wylfa B, is exciting. Investors, including Hitachi, have proceeded with that project, and I recently went to the site with the shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). The site is vast and has created 1,000 permanent jobs. Importantly, there will be indirect jobs in the supply chain, too. The Leader of the Opposition also went to the site when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—the project started in 2008-09.

The shadow Secretary of State and I also visited the energy centre, which is training and upskilling young people. We saw local apprentices between the ages of 17 and 20 who have an opportunity to use their skills in the local energy sector. Bringing and keeping prosperity in the area is something that we should add to this debate, because young people are important to our economy. The skills they are learning are not only usable in the nuclear sector; they are transferable, high-quality engineering skills. In the construction phase of Wylfa Newydd there is talk of some 6,000 to 8,000 construction jobs, which will be high-skilled in many cases. There will be opportunities for local businesses and individuals to work in the environment. There is cross-party recognition of the importance of vocational skills, which in the future will have parity with academic skills.

The energy island concept is more than just nuclear; it involves biomass as well, and there are opportunities for offshore wind. The Celtic array has been shelved for now, but Centrica was talking of huge investment. That potential not only benefits energy companies but the marine sector. In my constituency, we have an excellent company, Holyhead Boatyard, which runs tugs around the world and has moved into facilitating the offshore wind sector around the world with purpose-built boats. Its turbine transfer skill base ranges from apprentices to master mariners, with top engineering jobs in between. It builds crafts in the United Kingdom and maintains offshore wind. There is huge potential for low carbon energy sources such as offshore wind to benefit the United Kingdom, its ports and the maritime industries. That local company has an international reputation and employs people locally who also have the opportunity to travel.

As the hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned, solar energy is a huge success story for the United Kingdom, although many parts are imported and assembled here. Onshore wind is controversial—I remind the House that Anglesey was an early pioneer of many early wind farms. I must say that I am not a fan of onshore wind farms due to their sheer scale. They are four or five times the size of the original ones on Anglesey. We should be developing offshore, and not just for aesthetic reasons of how they look on the landscape; the wind resource is better offshore, and as wind technology develops, they will be of greater benefit offshore. I agree that we can get down to grid parity in the future, as has been indicated, if we invest long-term in offshore wind.

Research and development are important—we have also taken the lead there—as are links between the energy industry, electricity generation and low carbon, and colleges and universities. The university of Bangor in my constituency has a faculty on Anglesey, the School of Ocean Sciences, which has been pioneering climate change research not just on UK and European shores but in the south Atlantic, where it has been doing excellent work on climate change. We can give individuals career paths not only in the operation of energy generation and low carbon, but also in research and development, software technologies and all the things that I have seen that faculty use on Anglesey. There is great potential for jobs in construction, engineering, mechanics, security, catering and supplies in the area. All those downstream jobs help build a more prosperous economy in areas where energy development is going forward.

This is an important debate. The United Kingdom is leading in many such technologies. If we have a proper long-term plan for energy with consensus and certainty, we can benefit GDP. I call Anglesey the energy island, and we are going forward with that concept, but of course Britain is an island, and Anglesey could be a microcosm for the whole of Britain. Britain could be a leader on the European continent. As an island, we could be self-sufficient using new technologies, but we could also be pioneers in the development of many of those technologies, showing the way for the rest of Europe.

Energy security will still be on the agenda for decades to come. The decisions made by the previous Government and carried forward by this one—I welcome many of the things that this Government have done—need to move forward to give the stability and certainty that I have discussed, so that investors, whether indigenous or foreign, can look to the United Kingdom and say, “This is the place where we want to invest in new and low carbon technologies to generate the electricity that companies need and domestic consumers want, at affordable prices for consumers.” We need to create top-quality jobs so that we can be a world leader and the United Kingdom can move forward.

This is not just a debate at the fag end of a zombie Parliament; it is a restatement of the fact that we as a United Kingdom are forward-looking when it comes to climate change and low carbon energy, and that we will create the quality jobs, education, training and transferable skills that are needed to make UK plc and Anglesey energy island world leaders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr Brady. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo). I am not sure if this will be the last time we debate and listen to his contributions, but I pay tribute to his work for his constituents and for his party in serving the Government over the years, and to his work for the Committee on Energy and Climate Change.

The Committee has done an amazing job, not only in building the consensus that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) mentioned, but in demonstrating to someone like me that people do not have to live in a tepee to be green and do not have to switch off the lights and go backwards. To roll out a proper, successful, renewables-based energy policy, people have not only to understand targets for carbon reduction and the pressure of global warming; they have to understand the real world as it is, including finance, investment, risk and technologies. My hon. Friend has done a tremendous job as Committee Chair in bringing along both sceptic and enthusiast with the policy of renewables, and with an energy policy that has satisfied many of the historical splits across the parties that we have seen over the past 20 or 30 years.

Ministers could do a lot more listening to Select Committees, especially my hon. Friend’s, which has genuinely helped policy makers and has brought together the main parties in reaching a proper, grown-up solution to providing energy security and meeting our carbon reduction targets. My hon. Friend’s Committee marks a refreshing change. Members present will have spent time in other sectors of Government such as the Ministry of Justice, where constant party politicking goes on, or disagreement is often more important than consensus. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work. He will be missed, as will the sensible way the reports have been presented to the Government.

There are only 19 sitting days left in this Parliament. That is a rather scary number for all of us. I noted the kind comments made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. I am not sure who will be the Energy Minister in 70 days. He will certainly make a fine Energy Minister—if he is successful. I cannot wish him that success; I would not do that. I would certainly not want Russell Brand or Alex Salmond as Energy Minister. The main parties are all in a good place, engaging in grown-up politics in working towards a proper energy policy. It is important to note that among the most vocal opponents of the Infrastructure Bill was the Scottish National party, whose Members have failed to turn up for today’s debate. They are no doubt posturing on some other subject this week. They are not even here to claim credit for some of the successful CfD contracts that have been offered today. We should not forget that we will only solve Britain’s energy crisis as Britain. We will only keep the lights on as Britain, not as separate countries focusing on what divides us, rather than what unites us.

Today’s debate is timely, because the CfD auction results have just been published. We have offered contracts—they obviously have not been accepted yet—to 27 projects. The good news is that the CfD auction showed that, amongst other things, competition has worked. We have had a good result from our focus on trying to ensure that we provide value for money for the bill payer, and on increasing energy generation. The auction price for solar, for example, was 58% less than the administrative strike price. It was 18% less for offshore wind and 17% less for onshore wind. The value for money that that represents helped lever in £45 billion of investment into the energy market between 2010 and 2013. I am always trying to explain to people in different sectors that there is only so much money in this world chasing only so much investment. We have to make investment attractive to money or it will go elsewhere—not just domestically, but internationally.

Both this Government and the previous Government have done a good job in recognising that we have to create the conditions to get investment into high-risk areas and those with maturing technology. The CfD process has been a real success. Let us remember that the aim is to reduce carbon emissions. The UK will emit 4 million fewer tonnes of CO₂ emissions a year as a result of the auction. No one can say that that is a bad result. It puts us on the right path to meeting our aim of reducing carbon emissions. At the same time, we have shown that, if we seek a stable framework, people want to come forward and share the risk. The overall cost of production will reduce over that period, and I hope that by the end of the first 15 years—or whatever the time scale is—the actual production costs of many of these generators will be even lower. I hope the Government of the day will remain attuned to when a technology moves from “maturing” to “mature”, when they need to incentivise newer technologies further down the path, and when they perhaps need to let go of more mature technologies that have run their course over many years.

I again make the point that 11 of the 27 projects are in Scotland. That is a good news story for Scotland. I pay tribute to Scottish Labour Members who have lobbied hard on behalf of the Scottish renewables industry and their constituents. That would not have happened in such an easy way if we were two separate countries. All our bill payers will be sharing the burden of electricity generation. As the shadow Minister said, when there was not much wind blowing in parts of Scotland or when Scotland had to rely on our market in England, it was just a formality; there was no artificial barrier to that happening. People who are attracted by the Scottish nationalists or the agenda of separation should remember that independence would fundamentally undermine and damage Britain’s ability to provide electricity for all its citizens across all the isles. That needs to be fully taken on board.

Given the competitive drive to reduce the cost or strike price, which has been a good thing, we think the CfD auction will result in average annual savings of £41 per family bill. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) is right: I love Anglesey. When we go on holiday there, I can look out the window and see the red light shining on what used to be the Rio Tinto tower. I am happy, as are the Government, to work to ensure that any barriers to biomass are addressed in the next round of CfDs. That could include help to reduce risks for biomass investment. By working together, we can ensure that biomass has a better showing in the next round. Personally, I would like that project to be successful. I know how important energy is to the island of Anglesey and the pragmatic approach it takes. It would be good news for Holyhead if that project were successful. I am always happy to help ensure that biomass is embraced.

On the subject of the capacity market, securing our energy security is incredibly important. It is all very well encouraging generation, but if the lights go out and we have not worked together to ensure that there is always some capacity, that is almost for nothing. The auction for the capacity market recently completed. We secured 49.3 GW at a clearing price of £19.40 per kW for delivery in 2018-19, which is good news. Consumers and the public can be sure that, alongside our commitment to develop renewables, we have also achieved more security and secured more capacity.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk is a keen supporter of demand-side response. I asked officials to see an example of DSR, because how we use electricity efficiently and how we reduce demand are as important as how we cater for demand at other times. I urge Members to look at the example of ExCel, the big London exhibition site, which uses Flexitricity and has a genuinely good case model in how it uses diesel generators that switch on and off as demand requires. Flexitricity can control some of the generation remotely, reducing waste on the grid, and I hope to see more of that. The Department and I have certainly heard loud and clear my hon. Friend and his recommendation of and enthusiasm for DSR, which I hope is given a more prominent role in the next few years.

Other Ministers might get home or to their offices to find that the locks have been changed, because this is the second debate I have been at where Members have clearly demanded a future levy control framework and said that it is required. We hear that urgency. It is no comfort, but with only 19 sitting days to go, I anticipate that the Secretary of State will not be revealing that framework any time soon. We will certainly recognise that urgency in the near future. Whoever is in government, we will all be working to ensure that that long-term indication is in place. I hear with open heart and open mind the recommendation for a rolling seven-year framework to ensure that we keep things up to date. In my opinion, that would help to reflect advances in technologies as they develop. If we understand the impact that technologies have as they roll through, we might understand how much influence they will have on levies and everything else.

There is obviously a long list of renewables that we could talk about. The Government have clearly been happy to encourage offshore wind farm developments. We hear the fears about the high strike price and expense of offshore wind, but the CfD auction has shown that the direction is downwards. As the technologies have developed and competition has been brought in, we have started to reduce the offshore price, which I hope in the medium to long term will converge to be not so different from the onshore price, or near enough.

The Government are obviously committed to onshore projects as a way of generating energy. We are at a stage where many of us who see applications in our constituencies should and can say—the Government have shown this with where they have chosen not to support onshore wind farms—that investors should think carefully about whether they bring forward planning applications for a well-sited, well-researched location, or indulge in the speculative, lazy applications that we see in our constituencies. Out of the blue, a speculative application happens, and that is often what upsets and surprises constituents, coming as it does without any indication of logic or anything else. In those cases, the message should be loud and clear: “Do your research and work. Make sure that you are not speculating and trying to garner profit for profit’s sake rather than trying to fit into the community.”

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

The biggest drop in price in the CfD auction was solar’s 58% drop. The Government support solar at all levels, including below 5 MW, and with the feed-in tariffs. It has been encouraging to see how the solar industry has been imaginative in finding new sites that get the sun—for example, by renting roofs. The Government are certainly committed in the long term to ensuring that solar is part of the mix. We want it to be successful, and I hope to see more bids in the next CfD round.

[Albert Owen]

Before the Minister moves on from renewable energy, I am not making a partisan point, but does he share my frustration at the lack of development of commercial-scale marine energy? There have been a lot of good demonstrations of it that have not moved forward. What more does he think can be done to make it happen? Everyone agrees on the potential of wave and tidal energy, but it has not increased in scale. Since I have been a Member of this House—I was interested in energy from day one—it has always been three or four years hence, but it has not happened. What can be done so that we can get good commercial projects up and running in order to get the predictable energy supply that we need?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, because I too remember the grander schemes, such as the Severn barrage and the Wyre barrage in my constituency. They were quite large-scale, ambitious schemes. I checked before I came to the debate, and one of the Department’s priorities is the Swansea lagoon barrage. If we can get that up and running successfully, it is the kind of thing that will quickly trigger a roll-out elsewhere. As he says, wave and tidal energy have been just over the horizon for as long as I have been involved in such issues, but we are getting to a stage where the scale is right and not over-ambitious. From what I can tell, local businesses and people are supportive of the scheme in Swansea, so we should all try to help it to become a reality and sing its praises far and wide, should it be a success.

[Albert Owen]

I fully support the plans for Swansea. In my area, where there is good tidal flow, we have had a demonstration from Marine Current Turbines and Siemens, and we have seen the technology working in Strangford lough. Siemens did not take it to the next stage. The Government have done what they can. There are good renewable obligations and support in Scotland and other places, but schemes have just not gone far enough. I understand what the Minister says about scale, but I am not talking about a large-scale project; it could have developed in sections and become bigger. There is something missing. Will he consider that so that we can move forward with tidal energy?

[Mr Wallace]

I am happy to ask the Department about its observations on why Siemens did not choose to go forward, because we can learn from that. It may have been a commercial decision or there may have been an internal conflict of interest because the company wanted to focus on another technology, but it would be good to find out and move forward.

My constituency borders the two current shale gas sites. I want to put the Government’s position on the record: we are absolutely clear that we are not determined to rush for gas or to throw everything out just to get fracking going. The Government are in favour of fracking, but we want to be its arbitrator. We want to listen to the science behind it. We do not want to be in the pocket of the oil and gas companies or the green movement. The Government’s role is to take a pragmatic approach and ensure that shale gas proceeds, learning from all the experience around the world and from all the environmental studies and impacts that have happened, and use our position to ensure that we set a gold standard. We must move forward where we can, mitigating the effects on local communities through sovereign wealth funds and local community funding, but also through the planning conditions that can be set by mineral rights authorities.

Shale gas will and must be in the mix at some stage. I would rather buy my gas from Britain than from Mr Putin, so if people have objections on human rights grounds, there is one reason. I would rather not compress gas in big ships and take it around the sea if it is possible to get it from Britain. The Government’s position is not simply to progress recklessly on shale gas at any cost. Opponents of shale gas often paint it as if the rush for gas is true, but that is not the case. As we saw recently in the debates on the Infrastructure Bill—the Government accepted Opposition amendments—we will work to ensure that the industry is safe, that constituents are not affected unnecessarily, and that we all benefit from the process.

The last thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West was carbon capture and storage. We cannot avoid the fact that it will be part of an ability in which we must invest, and which we must develop to complement our energy generation over the next 20, 30 or 40 years. We cannot just pretend and have it as a tokenistic thing. It is going to be a fact and we must invest in it. The Government are doing what they can to help investment in the process. As with the barrage and tidal schemes, I look forward to the day when we start the process and get the pipelines and everything else in place. Whoever is in government, it is worth monitoring and investing in carbon capture and storage.

I hope that colleagues have felt that today’s debate has cemented the view that the current energy policy is travelling in the right direction for this country. It is based on reducing carbon emissions, encouraging different technologies and getting value for money for the bill payer. We cannot pretend that those issues are separate; they have to be hand in hand. We have to carry the public with us if we are going to develop energy policy successfully. We should be not pleased, but happy that the CfD auction proved that things are going in the right direction.

The economic benefits are clear. Since 2010, we estimate that more than £30 billion has been invested in electricity generation, principally in renewable technologies. In previous years, it might not have been the case, but that money has gone principally on renewable technologies, and £30 billion does not grow on trees. If we cannot get investment from the markets and the private sector, in the end we will have to get it from the taxpayer. It is a good thing that we have helped to change not only Government policy but investment policy and thinking in this country. As someone who, to some extent, came late to the energy debate, I am grateful for the work of the Select Committee and for its reports. I find them incredibly educational and I know that the Department finds them very useful in helping to create and shape new policy for the years to come.

Before finishing, I repeat my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk. I thank him for his work with the Select Committee and for his work for the whole House as well.

Offshore Wind Developments

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Weir]

We are in danger of having a debate within a debate. I will return to the points I was making on offshore wind, although nuclear power does come into this to some extent. If we are serious about the long-term development of offshore wind, we need clear targets and commitments for developers and we need to ensure that we give certainty to support supply chain investment and development. That would undoubtedly also involve providing the necessary conditions for competition, innovation and cost reduction, all of which are supposed to be the Government’s aims. Instead, there are mixed messages on energy policy and continuing uncertainty. Strike prices are set only to 2018-19 and the levy control framework is set only to 2020. There is no real commitment to a decarbonisation target. RenewableUK described the 2020 deadline as being like a cliff edge, because of the uncertainty on what comes after.

Those points were also raised in the Green Alliance report I mentioned, which concluded:

“The research has identified five actions the next government should take to realise the industrial and decarbonisation potential of offshore wind:

1. Set a 2030 carbon intensity target for the electricity sector of 50gCO2/kWh”—

given the Government’s previous response to that, I am not holding my breath—

“2. Confirm the scale of funding available to support delivery of low carbon energy infrastructure during the 2020s under the Levy Control Framework.

3. Provide more certainty for low carbon generators by confirming the timing of funding allocation rounds for the rest of this decade.

4. Stabilise the supply chain by committing to minimum levels of offshore wind deployment in the 2020s (dependent on generators meeting cost targets).

5. Draw on international experience to derisk UK offshore wind development and ensure a robust pipeline during the 2020s.”

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) made a point about the impact on the bill payer, which we also have to take into account. We cannot say that we will just pump money into any sort of development, irrespective of the impact on bill payers. It is not necessarily about putting more money into offshore wind. As I have said, by investing in offshore wind, we get more than just clean energy; we get industrial investment, jobs and the economic regeneration that many of us are looking for in our areas. It is about certainty and giving the industry a clear signal that the huge amounts of money it is putting into developing these projects will not be wasted and that there is a plan beyond 2020 to ensure that these developments will come on stream, produce energy and increase industrial investment.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is another big issue not the cost to projects of connecting to the national grid? Many of these offshore wind developments need new infrastructure and the grid. The grid has a long-term forward plan. If we have short-term CfDs, short-term investment needed for consent and no guarantees of grid connection, the whole situation is even more uncertain than he is outlining.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have spoken on many occasions about the difficulties that grid connections pose for many renewable generators, particularly in more remote areas such as the north of Scotland. There are a huge number of issues in relation to that. To be fair, efforts are being made to address some of those problems with the proposals for new lines down the east and west coast of Scotland and various other connections, but those are long-term projects. They will not be done quickly. The point is also that although many of these offshore wind projects are looking for consents now, it will be several years before they come on stream. I understand that from getting a CfD, it can be up to three years before the first turbines are operating or in place. There is a long-term aspect, but it is not beyond the wit of regulators to bring the two together.

[Albert Owen]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the point I am trying to make is that each of the individual projects will have to meet the cost of grid connection. It would be better to have the national infrastructure of the National Grid acting in the national interest by ensuring that the cost is spread across the country and not met just by the individual projects. A new grid connection costs hundreds of millions of pounds, which can in many cases make a bid uneconomic. That is my point.

[Mr Weir]

Again, I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He tempts me into a discussion about the postage stamp model of transmission charges, which is a similar issue, but I shall not go there because I am coming to a close and other people want to speak.

The industry also raised concerns about the levy control framework and called on the Government to address the political uncertainty about whether 2020 is a budgetary cliff edge. Offshore projects have a four to five-year horizon from being awarded a contract for difference to the commissioning of the first turbines. The industry is concerned that there is no clear indication about what will be available post 2020.

The Minister may say that it is difficult to give a clear indication about the future—indeed, we cannot be certain about what the Government will look like in six months, never mind six years—but giving some indication of the projected budgets and the intended direction of travel would go some way to addressing the industry’s concerns. Ministers have not been so reticent about nuclear energy. They have, in principle, agreed with EDF a contract for difference at Hinkley Point at a strike price of almost double the current wholesale price of electricity. That contract will last for 35 years—more than double the length for renewables. There seems to be a willingness to do more for nuclear than for offshore renewables, which provide a much better platform for clean energy and for the industrial regeneration that is required in many areas of our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Gray. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) and the Backbench Business Committee for this important debate.

I will try to carry out the difficult job of being a bridge between the anti-nuclear and anti-wind brigades in the debate, because I consistently support both forms of generation. I am pro-nuclear, pro-wind and renewables, and pro-energy efficiency. I see no contradiction in supporting all three if we are to achieve the goals of a long-term low-carbon economy, which is the way forward. We must be honest with the public when we talk about support mechanisms and subsidies. Each sector receives subsidies. The anti brigade say “Isn’t it terrible that the others get subsidies?” However, many of the technologies need to be upgraded, and some are new technologies, so they need Government support.

As a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change and the Committee that considered the Energy Act 2013 I supported electricity market reform. Any party in government over the relevant period would have needed to make progress on that. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that we need continuity and consensus when we talk about energy and long-term planning. We had that when the Government first came to power; and we had a sensible Energy Minister—I welcome the Minister to his place—but he was replaced by someone who was less pro-wind. He said in the Chamber that he supported it, but outside said he did not, following the line of many of the popular newspapers of the day. That is no way to make Government policy, and I think that the uncertainty has affected the future of development.

I want progress with—I hope—a change of Government this year, but also with consensus on energy policy, so that investors see certainty. During the Committee inquiry on energy market reform we spoke privately to businesses. They said that uncertainty and short-termism put them off investing in the United Kingdom. Those multinational companies will take their money anywhere development will happen. Visitors to Texas, where they have shale gas, will also see wind development there. Most countries are investing both in renewables and in either oil and gas, as in America, or nuclear where there is progress towards low carbon. I welcome the fact that my near neighbours the Irish Government now say that they cannot rule anything out, and are talking about new nuclear for the future.

I have been working closely with Labour colleagues in north Wales on the development of a low-carbon economy, not just for energy security, which is important, but for manufacturing and regional economic benefits. I have seen those benefits. The United Kingdom is an island economy, and I represent an island constituency. I want the maritime benefits not only of manufacturing, but of research and development and links with nearby universities. The university of Bangor, in the neighbouring constituency, has its ocean sciences faculty on Anglesey, and its research and development goes hand in hand with the development of offshore technologies. We need to make those links to get good quality jobs in the various regions of the United Kingdom. I support what is happening in Scotland in developing wind, and what is happening in east Anglia and elsewhere.

The United Kingdom is a small island that competes internationally, and we need to harness our resources, including wind, tide and waves, to maximise future benefits. That is why we need long-term vision, and policies to aid and abet it, to bring about top quality jobs—and the jobs in such industries are of top quality. There is a shipping company in my constituency called Turbine Transfers. It is international, operating across the world, and now makes purpose-built vessels for the offshore industry. It needs the certainty I have spoken of, so that it can build vessels to be crewed and maintained around our shores; that is the importance of offshore energy. With the electrification of our domestic system of surface transport—cars and railways—we will need low-carbon energy, and we need to focus on the long term. We have benefited in north Wales from taking such difficult decisions. I supported Gwynt y Môr when the Conservatives, in opposition, opposed it; but that development, to which the previous Government gave consent, is now a flagship policy of the Conservative Government. Such uncertainty and policy change is the reason for our lack of long-term investment. We need to move forward and get the quality jobs I have spoken about.

Hitachi is developing a nuclear power station in my constituency, which I fully support. I do not think that there is an either/or decision to be made over nuclear or renewables; I think we should have both. I have seen what skills have been developed over generations, and I want them to be transferable between different types of energy production. That is why I have been promoting Anglesey as an energy island—so that we can have a focus of attention and a centre of excellence, with links to universities, schools and technical colleges, to get the right skills base for the future, and high quality jobs. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the accents to be heard when he travels around the world; and Welsh accents can be heard in energy development in Canada and elsewhere. I want to hear those accents back home, in a forward-looking industry where young people have opportunities to develop. Offshore wind, like oil and gas, has provided great opportunities for people in the United Kingdom, and we should keep those sectors in our country. That is why I support nuclear as well as wind and renewable energy.

I am worried about contracts for difference and the small pot for maritime development and renewables such as wave and wind. In 2001 when I entered the House, I was always being told that wave and tidal energy were about five to eight years away, and I am still told that now. We did not have the policy certainty that we could take advantage of, and we need that. I have been to see research and development in the Orkney islands, but things are not moving forward.

Finally—and this is the main reason for my taking part in the debate—I have seen abandoned projects in my area. The Rhiannon project was going to supply between 2 and 3 GW of energy in round 3, and the application for the consents was made. Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent, but the project was abandoned because, in my opinion, of uncertainty about the future. Of course, there was talk of technical difficulties, and as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, there will be difficulties in future in deeper waters; but we need to plan for those. In future, there will be bigger projects, further offshore, harnessing energy more efficiently for the future. We need to take decisions now.

It is not a question of either nuclear or renewables. We need both if we are to move forward as a world leader. Nor is it a question of either tourism or energy development; we need both. My constituency is one of the most beautiful areas in the world, and tourism there has grown. We have a nuclear power station, we had early onshore wind, and now we have offshore wind development plans. The issue is Britain looking after its own interests with energy security, and attracting the high skill levels that the people of my area deserve.

Financial Services Authority and Connaught Income Fund

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on Arch Cru as secretary of the all-party group on the Arch Cru investment scheme, and on his involvement in issues relating to Capita. He raises pertinent points that I will come on to, so I am grateful for his contribution.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me so early. I have to leave, having been in the previous debate with him for an hour and a half.

Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that so little information is available on Capita, and particularly on the signing-off of the information memorandum? That is a matter of great concern to a number of my constituents and, I am sure, to constituents of hon. Members of all parties.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising important points about Capita that I will come on to. A central factor is what knowledge it had at various stages.

Wales Bill

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will have to forgive me; I have been looking at this more from the perspective of a Member of Parliament in a border area where many patients find it much easier and quicker to access hospitals in Hereford—as they have for rheumatology, for example—or in Bristol, but it affects the whole of Wales because health care is becoming a more specialised matter. In an area of 3 million people, we will not have all the specialists we would like, and that means that there will always be those who need to travel in order to get access to the best on offer.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman talked about regional differences. Has he carried out in-depth research on the situation in England, where there are issues with different health boards not being able to fund certain operations and services? Many of my constituents get good access to some of the best specialist treatments in the Liverpool and Manchester areas; Gobowen is a third good example of this. I am not quite clear about how he arrived at his earlier conclusions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

I shall speak briefly to my amendments 12, 13 and 14, of which I am proud. I associate myself, too, not only with the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), but with his speech. There was nothing in it that was an attack on Wales. He was simply highlighting a real concern of our constituents that needs to be addressed. I believe that the amendments provide the opportunity to deal with the fact that we need an NHS that serves the people of Wales.

[Albert Owen]

I take the hon. Gentleman at his word that he is not attacking the NHS in Wales. He has to acknowledge, however, that both his and my constituents already get some of the best specialist treatment over the border in places such as Liverpool, Manchester and Gobowen. That just happens to be a fact of life.

[Guto Bebb]

That is true; the hon. Gentleman makes a statement of the obvious. Before I was elected, I was proud to support the campaign launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who argued strongly that services in Walton rather than services in Swansea should be provided for people in north Wales. What the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands is the fact that patient choice has been taken away in Wales. People in Wales can be referred to hospitals in England by a GP, but only if the GP makes that referral on the patient’s behalf. The opportunity to make a choice is not available to patients in Wales—very different from the situation that applies to patients in England.

The situation in respect of patient choice in Wales is simple. Some political parties in Wales argue strongly that patients in Wales should have entirely the same right to choose their preferred hospital as patients in England. For some reason, the so-called party of the national health service in Wales is of the view that that right to choose should be denied.

Wales Bill

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The Committee will be pleased to know, I hope, that I view this as a probing amendment—unless I am provoked. I thought it would be helpful to draw out some of the implications resulting from taking a wider look at the issues about clause 2 that were raised on Second Reading. I shall say a few words of support for clause 2 and its principles and also speak about new clauses 4 and 6.

Amendment 15 is designed to achieve a number of things. Members will remember that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 effectively decoupled the linkage between the geographic constituencies of the Welsh Assembly and the Westminster ones. Although, after the amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, this has not yet taken effect for the 2015 general election—sadly, in my view—it will of course kick in for the 2020 election unless the primary legislation is changed. It thus seems sensible to look separately at the number of geographic constituencies that we need for electing Members to the Welsh Assembly, to look at the number of regions to determine whether we should have a number of regions or a single region, and to look at the relative balance between constituency seats in the Welsh Assembly and those elected on a list system which obviously affect the proportional nature of the system.

The system that we have now is the one that was set up at the beginning of the process. I think that, following the experience of a number of sets of elections and a number of different Administrations, as well as a change in the powers and responsibilities of the National Assembly, it would be sensible for the total number of Assembly Members and the relative balance between the different election routes to be considered. The setting up of an independent review by the Secretary of State is one possible way of going about that, although obviously there are other possibilities.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman wants a review because of the additional powers given to the Assembly, and because elections have produced either minority or coalition Governments in Cardiff Bay. Is it his personal opinion that there should be more Members of the National Assembly because of those additional powers? I fear that, rather than ending up with regional Members on the list system, we shall end up with parties choosing from the party list, and that, as a result, Members will come disproportionately from one area of Wales, and will not be representative. The additional Members have constituency work to do, and if the hon. Gentleman’s amendment were passed, that would be diminished.

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman reads my amendment, he will see that it is very balanced. It simply calls for an independent review, the report of which would go to the Secretary of State, who would lay it before each House of Parliament so that it could be considered. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that I have an opinion, and I do, but let me explain what the amendment will do—because Members will want to think about what is on the amendment paper—before explaining my view and what I consider to be the appropriate direction of travel.

The amendment simply suggests that the review should

“examine the implications for the desirable total number of Assembly members”

of the changes that we are making in clause 2—and I think it very sensible to revert to the original position, which the Labour party altered—and also examine the

“advantages and disadvantages of amalgamating the five Assembly…regions into one for the whole of Wales.”

That is because if the number of constituency seats is changed, depending on the number of those seats, it can be difficult to come up with equally sized regions. Alternatively, the regions have to be changed every time the number of constituencies changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

I completely agree. The change was made after evidence had been assembled for Parliament, and Parliament was convinced by that evidence.

There is a simple question that both supporters of the Bill and critics of this Parliament’s 2006 ban cannot answer. It is this: if candidates cannot persuade voters to vote for them, why should they nevertheless be forced on voters through the back door? The people of Wales are entitled to an answer, even if this Government cannot give it to them by ramming through this highly contentious, undemocratic and thoroughly objectionable clause in a Bill that otherwise, in its broad features, enjoys a fair degree of cross-party consensus.

The fundamental point is that the Government of Wales Act 2006, by introducing the ban, put the voters back in charge. If voters did not want to elect somebody, they did not have to do so. If they reject a candidate, that candidate should not end up representing them. We should keep the voters in charge by rejecting clause 2.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I will not go over many of the issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) raised, but he is absolutely right and I shall vote against clause 2 stand part because I believe that the restriction is right. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has been trying to intervene repeatedly to say that people have a choice—they could vote for an individual on the constituency basis but then have some other choice on the list. That is not quite the case. The names are listed in order and the voter might like candidate No. 3 on the list, but they do not have the choice to vote for that person—they vote for a political party, and it is the political party that selects the people at the top of the list. Usually that is either to boost its vote in an area or to get a person in by the back door who has already failed. That is the simple fact of the process before the current restriction came in; it is a back-door one.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is not so much a back door as a cat flap? You can not only go in through the cat flap but you can withdraw without the need for a by-election if you are on the list rather than being a constituency MP.

[Jonathan Evans]

It is your system.

[Albert Owen]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for his intervention. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) is shouting across the Floor that that is our system. We have changed the system. He was not here in that Parliament, but we changed it, and we changed it on the basis—this is important and has not been mentioned thus far—that in our 2005 manifesto we said we would bring in the restriction. We won the most seats in that election in Wales, and we had the biggest share of the vote in that election in Wales. I do not see many people knocking on the doors of constituency Members of Parliament saying they want to reverse that ban.

[David T. C. Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if his amendment stands tonight, his party will benefit electorally from it? How does he ensure that that is not the reason that he is making these points today?

[Albert Owen]

I do not believe there is an amendment, but we shall oppose clause stand part. The hon. Gentleman made the same point in an earlier intervention. As things stand, there will be no electoral benefit for the Labour party. The results and the evidence, and the psephology that comes with them, show that there has been no benefit to Labour since we introduced the restriction.

The question that the hon. Gentleman should be asking is why are we having this debate now? The Silk commission itself—we are having government by commissions—did not make this proposal. I am ready to be corrected by Ministers, but I do not think it was in their manifesto to reverse the ban. If I am wrong, I will take an intervention, but I do not think I am. [Interruption.] Someone says it was, but I do not know. Does the Secretary of State want to intervene to clarify the position? Was it in his party manifesto in 2010 to reverse the ban: yes or no?

[David T. C. Davies]

I will intervene. First, I apologise: obviously it is not an amendment, but the hon. Gentleman will take the point.

Secondly, no, it probably was not in our manifesto, but the point is that no one would have noticed whether it was or was not. The hon. Gentleman’s party has won a few elections and lost a few over the past 15 years, but nobody voted for or against the Labour party or any other on the basis of what they were going to do about the voting system for the Welsh Assembly.

[Albert Owen]

There is a serious point to make about manifestos. In 1999, we introduced a scheme that has seen some abuse by candidates who, when they faced the electorate, were rejected—comprehensively in many cases, coming third or fourth for the seat—but got in on the list. That is why we put the measure in our 2005 manifesto and implemented it. It was this Parliament—the hon. Gentleman might mock manifestos, but I am sure he does he does not mock the will of this Parliament—that said we should bring in the restriction, and there is no mandate to reverse that. That is my point: none of the parties put it in its manifesto, and when the Government went out to consultation on the question, the majority of those who bothered to respond wanted the ban to remain. There is absolutely no mandate for the clause at this time. The Committee should consider that point.

[Hywel Williams]

I think we were talking about evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Professor Roger Scully told the Committee:

“It is impossible to take seriously the idea, suggested…by some…that dual candidacy in Wales is in any sense”

unusual. He is one of the pre-eminent political analysts in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

I know the hon. Gentleman had to leave the Chamber and was not here when my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath listed a number of people who hold the opposing view. My point is that the only time that this proposal has been put to the electorate in Wales, the people in Wales, whom we are here to represent, voted in support of the ban; and in the consultation, they supported that measure as well. That is why we should be voting against the clause.

There is no mandate for the clause, other than to support the smaller parties. If those who will vote for the clause tonight were really serious about helping smaller parties, why not change the system altogether to help independents, who do not have the party machinery?

[Mr Llwyd]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

That would be a serious clause to have in the Bill—one designed to help the independents—but no: because the Government feel that they have somehow been done a disservice, they are helping themselves by creating the opportunity to put people in the lifeboat that is the list system.

I will give way one final time to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).

[Mr Llwyd]

No, it is okay. Carry on.

[Albert Owen]

I thought the right hon. Gentleman wanted to defend the leader of Plaid Cymru, so I would have been happy to let him intervene. The Plaid Cymru leader sent the letter we have heard about and also made a very bold statement that she intended to stand for a constituency seat. Now, however, she is changing her mind—she thinks she may lose. She provides great evidence that what the Government want to introduce is a lifeboat system.

[Mr Hanson]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that, if my constituents chose not to elect somebody for the constituency seat who happened to be No. 1 on the list and was therefore elected, the only way they could remove that person from the No. 1 position on the list would be by electing that person for the constituency in the first place, because of the way the electoral system works? Is not that the craziness of the situation?

[Albert Owen]

It is absolutely crazy.

I shall not detain the Committee on these arguments, which have already been set out extensively, but I have not heard one argument from the Government that there is a mandate for the clause and that the people of Wales think the ban, the restriction, is unfair. It is not. It is fair. It is fair that people should stand for a constituency seat and put their position before the electorate; if they are rejected, they should accept that they have been rejected by those people and not seek to represent them through some higher list system in the future.

I shall vote against clause stand part. I hope that hon. Members will realise that the people of Wales do not want the ban to be reversed and that they will vote in accordance with what the people of Wales want us to do, which is maintain the ban so that we have constituency Members people recognise and a more open system. I regret not tabling an amendment to create a more open list system, so that the people could choose whom they want to represent them, not just the political classes of the four—perhaps five—main parties in Wales.

North Wales Economy

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hanson]

It does not help. I hope that the Minister will not only focus on the positives but listen to the Members here today who represent north Wales. Every Labour Member from north Wales is present, along with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Member for Aberconwy—the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) is not present—so we have a strong cross-party group that is trying to back north Wales.

I want to discuss four or five areas where the Government can help to grow the economy. We have discussed transport infrastructure with the Minister before, but real opportunities exist for us to improve connectivity between north-west England and north Wales and between north Wales and the economic driver that is London. I want to put on the record my support for High Speed 2 and for Sir David Higgins’s decision to draw the Government’s attention to fast development at Crewe. I also support attempts by the Government and the Assembly to develop electrification between Crewe and the north Wales coast. I do so not for the sake of speed—an extra 10 or 15 minutes off journey times would be nice—but for the sake of capacity, which is crucial to our economy. HS2 will bring vital extra capacity to the area for tourists, for freight and for businesses.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend highlights the importance of the European Union and of transport infrastructure, but the two are combined. North Wales lies on the trans-European network as a link between Dublin and London, so there is a strong business case for Ireland, Britain and the rest of Europe to work together to ensure that north Wales gets the best connectivity.

[Mr Hanson]

That is an extremely valid point. The link from Holyhead in my hon. Friend’s constituency along the north Wales coast and down through my constituency into north-west England, and even the links across to Humberside, down to London and to mainland Europe, are extremely valuable. I know that the Minister supports that, but I think that he wants to be sure that he has the support of Opposition Members who represent north Wales to go forward with HS2 and to try to make those links in a positive way.

This is not only about electrification and links to HS2 and the south, but about the links between north Wales and Merseyside and Manchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I are meeting the Secretary of State for Transport regarding the Halton curve, which is a link to Merseyside and Liverpool airport that will provide access for business. A direct link to Manchester airport should also be considered. Two great airports lie within 40 miles of my part of Wales and while Assembly investment at Cardiff is fine, it does not serve the needs of the north. I hope that the Minister will be able to liaise with others on that.

Transport and rail infrastructure are key, but I also want to stress the importance of Europe. My part of north Wales does not benefit from European structural funds, but much of north Wales does. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) played an active role over many years in developing that funding with two former Secretaries of State for Wales, my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and for Neath (Mr Hain).

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Hollobone. I shall try to keep my remarks to seven minutes.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). I agreed with many of the points he made in his positive speech. As to transport, I fully accept that we need to push for upgrades to the north Wales main line. I would like electrification of the line; slight upgrading of train speed is certainly needed, because that will result in greater capacity. I use the A55 regularly, as do my constituents, to get to work. We should recognise that it is on a Euroroute, and apparently it is the only Euroroute that still has a roundabout on it. There are two, and they are both in my constituency, at Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr, so in due course I would welcome any upgrades to the A55, especially in my constituency.

The big picture is that north Wales can expect exciting times. There has been concern about economic figures, in relation to employment, but in Aberconwy unemployment figures have fallen by 13%. Most importantly, the youth unemployment figures have fallen. I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber would welcome 18 to 24-year-olds finding jobs. It is positive for those individuals, and for the economy of north Wales.

The opportunities presented by Wylfa Newydd are also part of the big picture. We cannot overestimate the potential of a new nuclear power station to transform the economy of north-west Wales. I am delighted about the partnership between Gwynedd council, Isle of Anglesey county council and Conwy county borough council, to work to ensure that young people in north-west Wales will have the relevant skills for that exciting industry. Those who have the skills relevant to Wylfa Newydd will also have the skills relevant to the wind farm developments that are happening, and to other forms of energy generation.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman is right; will he join me in congratulating the Welsh Government on investing £2.5 million only last week in skills training in the energy sector?

[Guto Bebb]

I will. I will not allow any party politics to stand in the way of the fact that that was a welcome decision. I also welcome the commitment by further education colleges, local authorities and the business sector to making that happen. It will provide young people with an opportunity to plan for a career in north Wales. I also welcome yesterday’s decision by the green investment bank to invest £220 million in the Gwynt y Mor facility. Every councillor in Conwy, including every Labour councillor, voted against that development, but the key thing is that the decision was made, and we need as much local value to be drawn from the development as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). On a lighter note, both mentioned the zip-wire project. Would it not be a great opportunity for both to have a go on it, as Boris Johnson did?

[Mr Llwyd]

It would turn into an adult movie, I am afraid.

[Albert Owen]

I could not possibly comment.

This is an important issue. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has been a great advocate for his constituency, for north Wales, and, when he was a Wales Office Minister, for the whole of Wales. I give credit to him and his team for the dualling of the A55 across Anglesey, which was unfinished business. He and his team did much good for the north-west of Wales and, in particular, my constituency.

I welcome the fall in unemployment in Wales. For the first time in my political career as an activist and a Member of Parliament, average unemployment is lower in Wales than in the rest of the United Kingdom. When I first became a political activist in the ’80s, my constituency was top of the wrong leagues. It had double the average unemployment of the United Kingdom, but that has been transformed. According to the House of Commons Library, between 1997 and 2007, my constituency created an extra 7,000 jobs. My area has gone from the top of the unemployment league to below the average figure. That is a good news story, but it did not happen by accident. There was a lot of direct Government intervention, and I pay tribute to the Welsh Government for their intervention in job creation.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy is absolutely right that it is essential for our economy and our future that we get young people into training and work. That has been happening in Wales at a greater rate because of the jobs growth fund in which the Welsh Government are directly involved. It is due to that fund that we are seeing historically lower average unemployment in Wales than the rest of the United Kingdom.

We need such schemes and direct intervention. As the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, we need to change the fact that there is a low-wage economy in many areas, but I am confident we can do that. There are new schemes on the horizon—excuse the pun—such as Horizon, which in 2009 was established to build a new nuclear power station in my constituency. It was an investment of £6 billion to £8 billion—one of the biggest single investments in Wales, and as big an investment in north-west Wales as the Olympics were in London. It will have huge benefits not only for my constituency but for the whole of north-west Wales. It raises the bar for skills in the whole of north Wales, making it an attractive place for businesses to invest and for people with high skills to work. I welcome that investment.

I also welcome the £2.5 million fund announced by the Welsh Government for nuclear and energy skills training. We can become the centre of excellence for energy development in research and development, generation and other parts of the sector. It is hugely important for our energy security as a nation, and we want north Wales to be a big part of that. I welcome initiatives in offshore wind, nuclear and solar power. I also welcome the research and development that is being done in colleges and universities across north Wales. Coleg Menai in my constituency is central to that work. Decommissioning projects have gone ahead, with money set aside to train people for the future. As one wave of energy regeneration closes down, investment in skills as a result of money from decommissioning has gone into jobs for the future.

I have previously raised the matter with the Minister because I feel strongly about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn was right to highlight the importance of the Siemens investment in Hull. As I have said many times, Welsh ports are losing out. Other people and I lobbied the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer for money from the £60 million fund to release that blockage and to get money into the ports, but the present Government decided that Wales would not benefit, other than consequentially. Ports are a reserved matter and the United Kingdom should look at all its ports equally. We are losing out because there is lack of investment in Welsh ports. Hull is developing and that is good for the United Kingdom, but I want Holyhead in the west to develop too. That would be good for Wales, for north Wales and for the United Kingdom.

Previous speakers have rightly talked about the balance between industrial development and food, farming and tourism. That balance is extremely important, because those sectors are major contributors to the north Wales economy. I recently opened a £7 million upgrade at the Glanbia cheese factory at Llangefni in my constituency. Hon. Members may eat Domino pizzas, and the toppings are likely to have been produced in my constituency. High-tech, well-paid jobs use locally sourced resources. The cheese factory uses locally sourced milk, it is a good employer and it helps to produce a UK and international brand. Those jobs are worth while.

Last Friday, I visited Llandudno to attend the Welsh Labour party’s successful conference. More importantly, my mother-in-law lives there. She has worked in the hotel and leisure industry throughout her working life. She has contributed as a self-trader and business woman for many years. It is always good to go back to Llandudno to see her. I wanted to put that on the record because mother’s day has passed and I should probably have been there on Sunday, but I was there over the weekend.

I held a round-table discussion with hoteliers at Dylan’s restaurant, which is a fantastic new facility on Anglesey employing some 40 people. It brought together farmers, hoteliers, restaurateurs and people involved in tourism alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the shadow Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We understand the importance to the region of the rural economy and jobs. Talking specifically about the tourism industry, I believe that there is an opportunity for the UK Government to consider reducing VAT in the hospitality and tourism sector. That call comes not just from politicians but from the business sector. Someone contacted me about the importance of doing so. They wanted to upgrade and to invest in their business.

[Chris Ruane]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Albert Owen]

I am happy to take an intervention if my hon. Friend wants to make one, but other hon. Members want to speak, and some hon. Members have spoken for a long time. We need to make the case for the tourism sector in north-west Wales.

The Governments in the Republic of Ireland and in France, our near neighbours, have reduced VAT to stimulate the economy. A campaigning group has carried out a study which shows that a cut in VAT in the first year would result in a loss to the Treasury, but would be cost-neutral in the second year, and result in profit thereafter.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Labour Members, particularly the hon. Gentleman, continue to use the example of France, where 1 million jobs have been destroyed. Here in the UK, more than 1 million jobs have been created, so he should be wary of harking back to the French example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

The Minister is being selective, because the majority of European countries have cut VAT. We are out of sync with many of our competitors. The Republic of Ireland is a great example of a country that is coming out of recession because it has provided a stimulus for small businesses. The Government should take that on board as we come out of recession.

My final comments are about borrowing. Yesterday, we had a long debate on the Wales Bill. It is important to have borrowing powers, and not just for the M4 relief road. We need relief roadworks in north Wales, particularly in my constituency around the Menai bridges, where there is a huge problem that delays traffic on both sides. That affects not just local traffic but visitors. I want Anglesey, north Wales and Wales to be a centre of attraction for high-quality jobs in rural and urban areas. I want that centre to be a place where people want to work, live and invest. Do not take my word for the fact that it is a beautiful place, Mr Hollobone—come and visit. Come and join the people who want to come to north Wales. It is a unique corridor between England and the Republic of Ireland and a place to do business. I want Governments to work together at all levels as we, the politicians in this debate, want to work together for the benefit of our constituents.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

We are taking action. We are making available £240 million. We can make those substantial resources available only because of difficult decisions that we have taken to cut the deficit and to put the national finances back in order—measures that the hon. Lady opposed on every single opportunity over the past three or four years. We are taking action where we can, and those measures have been welcomed by industry across Wales.

I move on to transport, which quite a few Members have mentioned. We at the Wales Office totally understand the concerns and the desire for electrification of the north Wales main line. That is something that the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), is personally very engaged in, and on which we are in close dialogue and discussion with the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport. The right hon. Member for Delyn is quite right, because electrification of the north Wales main line and the development of the High Speed 2 hub at Crewe will open a hugely expanded range of opportunities for travel and for the economy of north Wales. That is something that we very much support.

I cannot offer any immediate good news on the Halton curve, which has been mentioned more than once this morning. The UK Government have no immediate plans to reopen that section of line, but we want to hear the arguments. If the right hon. Gentleman is engaged in work on the business case for reopening the Halton curve, I would like to see that, and I am happy to facilitate discussions with the Department for Transport where possible.

On the point about ports, we have discussed before the £60 million fund that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) raised. I salute him for the work that he does in championing not only his local port, but the port sector across Wales. The fund that was announced was an economic development fund designed to attract wind turbine manufacturing to port areas. He will be aware that economic development is devolved to the Welsh Government, so the Welsh Government received the Barnett consequentials of that £60 million fund. They received the resources, so if it had been a priority for them, they could have initiated something similar for Wales.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister is trying to say that that is an economic issue, but the Government changed the rules because they were worried about the impact of state aid rules. On port development, will he join me in condemning Stena Line, which is talking about changing wages and conditions instead of investing in the ports of west Wales—something that I know he is greatly concerned about? Stena Line wants to cut wages and conditions and race to the bottom, rather than investing for the future.

[Stephen Crabb]

No, I will not join in criticising Stena. I met with the company recently, and it faces a really tough battle to stay competitive and keep those services. It is a good company that has invested in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in mine. We have to work with it to see that it continues to make that investment.

The question of Europe was raised by several Opposition Members, and I repeat what I said at Wales Office questions last week: the vast majority of businesses across the UK and in Wales strongly support our desire for a change in our relationship with Europe regarding the level of regulation and the burden of cost that our membership places on the private sector. Businesses do not want to rush headlong to the exit and leave the European Union, but they want change. That is backed up by comments made by those who run the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI.

The point about multinationals being based in Wales and using it as a springboard into the European Union is important. I received a letter this morning from one of those multinationals, in which it welcomes the action that we have taken on energy costs but raises concerns about a regulation at the European level. Small and large businesses in Wales understand our issue with the European Union, and they support the action that the Prime Minister is taking to reduce costs and the burden of regulation for Wales.

In the few seconds that I have remaining, I again thank the right hon. Member for Delyn for securing the debate. I look forward to discussing the issues again in future.

Tourism (VAT)

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on an excellent introductory speech. I know that we are time-limited, so I will concentrate on some items local to my area and on general issues. As both speakers have said, VAT is a consumer tax that impairs employment opportunities, so it is in many respects a tax on jobs. The Government claim, quite rightly, that they want to eradicate the deficit, but they have chosen the wrong tax to increase, because it has a negative effect on jobs and the economy. In the United States, where there has been fiscal stimulus, the economy has grown much more quickly since the recession than in this country.

VAT has an impact on jobs directly and on the tourism sector in particular, and not only the journals of the hospitality industry are saying that: The Daily Telegraph, which is not a left-leaning paper by any stretch of the imagination, has said that VAT

“is forcing many businesses into a tight corner.”

VAT is hurting small businesses, and as a consequence, it is affecting the number of jobs that could be created.

The tax take is being unfairly concentrated on small and medium-sized businesses. We are seeing a 19% increase in VAT on small businesses at the same time as large corporations are experiencing a decrease in the tax taken from them by the Treasury. We need to even out that situation.

The suggestion made in this debate—including by the hon. Member for South Down, who secured it—to reduce VAT on tourism is a sensible one. Tourism is one of the fastest growing global industries, and we live in a global time, as the hon. Member for Totnes suggested. My area has a link with the Republic of Ireland, which is only two hours away, and many tourists who come to north-west Wales “do Europe” and they can compare the prices in Britain with those in other countries in the European Union. That is true in my area, to the south and west of us—Pembrokeshire is also close to the Republic of Ireland—and in the south-east of England, which is close to France and the rest of the continent.

I represent Ynys Môn, the Isle of Anglesey, and the area is very proud of its tradition of drawing many people from across the world. We need to help tourism businesses. In the short time that I have left to speak, I will highlight the experience of one business, whose owners have written to me. At the moment, their business is just below the VAT threshold. They want to invest in the local economy and local people, but they cannot do so because they are inhibited by the fact that they would face a 20% hike in VAT if they choose to go above the threshold.

VAT is a tax on jobs and it can be reduced. People right across the United Kingdom want a fair and level playing field for our tourism and hospitality industries. Reducing VAT is a simple measure that could achieve that level playing field.

I finish by saying to colleagues who represent areas that are being flooded that the UK is a great destination and that it is open for business. The heart of the British Isles is Ynys Môn, the Isle of Anglesey, but the rest of Britain would also benefit from a policy of reducing VAT.

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

If I keep taking interventions, I fear that my comments will become less fresh and novel to listeners because my hon. Friends, with their expertise on this matter, are anticipating many of my points. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for what he said.

Sadly, following the withdrawal of banking services by Barclays, my constituent, Mr Anwar Ali, had to run down his business severely, and I understand that if he is unable to find a solution to this banking problem, the business may have to close. It is one thing for large banks to refuse to lend to small businesses—we all know about that—but it is another to deny to legitimate, law-abiding small businesses the basic service of a bank account. The banks casually say that they are making a commercial decision, but to small businesses it is a commercial death sentence. Let me remind hon. Members of the importance of such remittances, especially to developing countries.

According to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report in 2012, in 48 of the least developed countries, remittance receipts climbed from £3.5 billion in 1990 to more than £27 billion in 2011—that figure might be much higher. In Somalia alone, the authorities said in 2012 that around one third of the country’s GDP—$2 billion—came through small money transfer agencies, and that 40% of people in Somalia depended on remittance flows.

A major multinational bank, which in recent years was heavily fined for wrongdoing, is operating in a market dominated by a small number of players of its kind and has withdrawn, mainly from small businesses, a service vital to their existence and crucial to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is difficult to get to the bottom of exactly why that has happened, because it has not made its reasons clear. Are they commercial reasons, as it blithely says, or are they fears about terrorism and money laundering? There is a lack of clarity about the reasons.

Anthony Jenkins, the chief executive officer of Barclays, said that it was stopping offering bank services to such business because they

“don't have the proper checks in place to spot criminal activity and could unwittingly be facilitating money laundering and finance terrorism”.

In a letter to Dahabshiil, which is one of the larger payment firms and is located, I believe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, Barclays said that the decision was

“not a negative reflection of your anti-money laundering standards, nor a belief that your business has unwittingly been a conduit for financial crime. It is, however, a commercial decision that we have taken due to the risks of the sector”.

Perhaps the Minister can explain—I know he talks to these big banks—what he thinks is behind the fact that every single major UK bank refuses to provide banking services to the sector, effectively financially excluding the firms, without considering each of them on its merits. Does he believe that that is purely commercial coincidence, or is it—[Interruption.] I wonder whether those in the civil service Box would stop talking while I am addressing the Chamber.

Does the Minister believe that that situation is a commercial coincidence, or is it another aspect of the overall lack of competition in the banking sector that the Government are failing to address? What can he tell us about the role of the National Crime Agency in this matter? In effect, the uncompetitive major banks have erected a complete barrier to the financial sector for some of its smallest members. Does the Minister think that is acceptable?

Dahabshiil was able to win an injunction against Barclays in the courts in October, so its account remains open for the time being, at least. Unfortunately, however, many other firms, including the one in my constituency, have not benefited from the development, because their accounts have already been closed by Barclays. Does the Minister believe that Barclays should offer to reopen the accounts that it closed before the court’s decision so that the account holders are able to carry on their business until the case is finally settled? Does he agree that that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do? It would allow businesses such as the one in my constituency to get on with the business that they were doing perfectly legitimately and legally beforehand so that money transfers could take place. Will he call on Barclays to reopen those accounts until the court decision is made? I understand that so far Barclays has refused to reopen those accounts, so I hope that the Minister will condemn that.

I pointed out in the 2013 debate that there seems to be a different set of rules for large banks and financial institutions, such as Barclays and Western Union, which stand to benefit from the situation. It has been proved that Western Union helped to facilitate money laundering in Mexico—it paid a fine to the Arizona state authorities in relation to that—yet it stands to inherit a lot of the business of small firms against which nothing has been proved. In recent years, almost all the large banks and institutions have been found guilty, in one way or another, of financial misdemeanours, and they have sometimes been fined—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I could ask you, Mr Owen, to appeal that those in the civil service Box do not interrupt the debate.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a very interesting contribution. Everybody is very quiet, so any noise that is heard is magnified. I ask that everyone in the room is courteous to the Member who is speaking.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is unfortunate that sound carries, Mr Owen, but it is distracting, so I am grateful for your assistance.

Those large banks and institutions not only have been fined, but have been bailed out by ordinary taxpayers to the tune of billions of pounds to stop them failing as a result of their greed. Their reward for that malfeasance has been a handout from Governments, yet these small businesses, against which much has been insinuated but nothing actually proved, have been squashed by the big banks’ refusal to allow them the facilities that they need to survive, effectively denying them the air that they need to breathe as businesses. That is an intolerable abuse, so the Government should be acting with the utmost urgency to fix it.

So far the Government have taken some steps, especially in relation to Somalia. In September they announced an action group on cross-border remittances, before announcing its terms of reference in December. However, four months after the action group was set up, why—to my knowledge, unless the Minister is going to make an announcement today—has no chair of the group been appointed and why have no meetings taken place? I understand that, as a direct result of today’s debate, a date has finally been set for the group’s first meeting, but the record so far smacks more of inaction than action. Will he tell us today who is to chair the group, and will he confirm when it will meet? We all recognise the danger of terrorism, but why has there not been more focus on helping such remittance businesses to avoid risks, rather than shutting them down when there is no evidence of wrongdoing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that I will be calling the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 10.40 am.

National Infrastructure Plan

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the pipeline of money is already open for that project, as I announced in June. The work is now being done to work out precisely what improvements are available for the A303 and the A30 in that important link to the south-west of England. The Government are committed to ensuring that the route is upgraded, which is why we are conducting a feasibility study. By this time next year, we will set out the details for the House.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the positive step forward on the Wylfa nuclear power station and the conversion of the Liberal Democrats on new nuclear build. I also welcome the extra resources for offshore wind, which will benefit not only my constituency, but the whole north Wales region. One missing element from the infrastructure plan is port development in Wales, which is a reserved matter. Will the Chief Secretary agree to meet me, so that we can have a level playing field for both English and Welsh ports in the development of offshore wind?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the steps that we are taking on the Wylfa power station and on offshore wind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has changed our party’s approach to the issue, which I think was the right and realistic recognition of our energy needs in future. With regard to port development, it might be better if the hon. Gentleman met a representative of the Department for Transport, but if that is unsuccessful, I would be glad to meet him.