Grangemouth Refinery

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Ed Davey

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. Her first was about the recent statement by the Finance Secretary in the Scottish Government that they were looking for potential buyers. I have spoken to Mr Swinney about that, and we in the Westminster Government certainly stand ready to assist. It is a devolved responsibility, but my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be making all efforts, through Departments and UK Trade & Investment, to assist should we need a buyer for the petrochemicals plant.

The right hon. Lady asked whether INEOS should have got around the table. Throughout the dispute, I have personally been asking both sides to get around the table. At one stage, INEOS was not prepared to go to ACAS. I personally spoke to INEOS and persuaded it to go to ACAS, which it then did, and I regret that those ACAS talks were not successful at avoiding the situation that we have arrived at today.

The right hon. Lady asked about the contingency plans that we put in place. We have been working for a significant time to ensure that there were contingency plans, should the disruption become any worse. As she knows, the refinery is currently closed down, but fuel is coming through the refinery—refined fuel is being loaded from ships into the plant and then on to racks to go into tankers. That is a part of our contingency plans, but they are much more detailed and granular than that. They go into minute detail about how we would ensure that fuel—heating oil, road fuel and aviation fuel—is supplied throughout Scotland, which is why I can say confidently that the people of Scotland may be reassured that we will keep fuel going through that economy.

Finally, the right hon. Lady asked about the review of refineries, and we expect to have that—probably—by the end of the year. It is very detailed and has been under way for some time. She will understand that there has been a big switch in the way in which motorists use fuel—away from petrol to diesel—but most refineries in the UK produce petrol rather than diesel. We import a huge amount of diesel, and that is one of a number of issues being considered in that review.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The dispute has been characterised by intransigence on both sides and it is regrettable that it has resulted in this decision. I support the fact that the Governments who have jurisdiction in Scotland—the Scottish Government and the UK Government—are working together to ensure that we get a solution. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give about any guarantees that we can secure for the future of the Scottish and the UK economies, which are threatened by the present situation, and not least for the future of North sea oil production?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. The Scottish Government and the Westminster Government have been working extremely closely and I am grateful for such work. The partnership has been successful and constructive, and we will need to continue to work together in the days and weeks ahead for the people of Scotland—and, indeed, for the people of the UK, because as he suggested, this has UK-wide implications. Beyond that, I remind the House that Her Majesty’s Treasury has been working with INEOS to look at potential infrastructure guarantees, should INEOS make a decision to invest in the petrochemicals plant. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has developed innovative infrastructure guarantees and we stand ready to assist with that. I know that the Scottish Government have plans to assist as well.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Ed Davey

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I shall assess that issue and put both sides of the argument because we must have a balanced approach to this important debate.

I have also heard arguments about the disadvantages of very late light evenings in summer. Experience of a similar change in Portugal suggested problems with children’s sleep patterns and some have suggested there could be implications for antisocial behaviour. In other areas, the case remains unproven. I think that the hon. Member for Castle Point would accept that it is unclear whether there would be a positive impact on crime rates and general public health. Some of the claims about the extremely positive impact for specific sectors would no doubt benefit from closer scrutiny.

Against that background, it is not surprising that opinion remains divided. People’s views depend significantly on where they live, what they do for a living and whether they enjoy outdoor pursuits. Also relevant are personal preferences such as whether one is a morning person or not. I am not sure whether you are a morning person, Mr Deputy Speaker—you are shaking your head. One thing we remain convinced about, which must lead us to oppose the Bill, is that we cannot make this change unless we have consensus throughout the United Kingdom. That has recently been made clear by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion.

We must acknowledge that the change would have widely differing impacts on day-to-day life in different parts of the UK. They would be particularly acute in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where it would not get light in mid-winter until nearly 10 am in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast; in Lerwick in the Shetland islands, it would not get light until 10.8 am on new year’s eve. Although hon. Members have spoken of changes in public opinion in Scotland, it is clear that much opinion understandably remains against the proposal.

The case is particularly difficult in Northern Ireland and I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who approached the debate in a considered and objective way. As she said, unless the Republic of Ireland also made the change, there would be additional cross-border complications. These issues would need further consideration and careful prior consultation with the Irish Government.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the point made in an earlier intervention that the Republic of Ireland would automatically follow whatever we did was a bit patronising and arrogant given the consequence in places such as Galway, where sunrise would be at 9.51 am? It is pretty reasonable that the Republic of Ireland should have a view on that.

[Mr Davey]

I shall discuss that in more detail, particularly in relation to Galway bay, if my right hon. Friend will be patient.

The Government’s view is that the consensus across all parts of the UK needed to justify passing legislation on this does not exist. That simple fact must lead us to oppose the hon. Lady’s Bill today, but I hope that some of my later remarks will be of comfort to her.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Ed Davey

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend has corrected the record, and I can say that we have that good management with Moya Greene.

The real challenges of the digital world, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, apply to all postal administrations across the world. It is the deep challenges that face Royal Mail and the Post Office that make the position of the Opposition at best incredible and at worst downright irresponsible. They know the problems that Royal Mail faces: the decline in letter volumes as e-mail volumes grow exponentially, the large losses the company has made in recent times, and the incomparably large pension deficit. We know that they know, because just last year they said the same thing, and put a Bill before Parliament to address those very same problems. I have that Bill here—but unfortunately it was not brought down the corridor from the other place for us all to debate in this Chamber. If it had been, the similarities in the Bill would have meant that many of the questions raised in this debate could have been debated then. So, let me address some of the questions that I have been asked.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall talked about foreign ownership. She may remember that when her Government tabled their Bill there was concern on the Labour Benches that TNT and Deutsche Post might buy Royal Mail, so she has an issue to raise. What is often forgotten in this debate is that British investors already own 30% of Deutsche Post. That is the real world: investors invest in good companies.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) had worries that the royal associations would somehow be broken as a result of privatisation. The Queen will continue to approve all stamps that bear her image, as she does now. The Royal Mail brand is valuable and we will put safeguards in place against its misuse. We have initiated discussions with the Palace for that very purpose. I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who claimed that more post offices closed under the Conservative Government, that he is wrong. In 18 years of Conservative government fewer post offices closed than in 13 years of Labour government.

Coalition colleagues might be concerned because of the similarities between our Bill and the Labour Bill. They are so similar that we half expected the Labour party to feel duty-bound to support our Bill.

For example, there are almost identical proposals on pensions, except that our proposals are slightly more favourable to Royal Mail employees. The clauses on regulation are also similar, except that our Bill introduces new safeguards for the universal postal service that were strangely absent from the previous Government’s Bill. Our Bill rebalances the regulatory framework, putting the universal service and its financial sustainability at its heart.

Those ought to be major areas of agreement, but we did not get that tonight. We heard some bizarre criticisms from Opposition Front Benchers. They said that we are not addressing the problems of the regulatory system, but it is their regulatory system. They do not appear to have read the Bill, because we are making changes to that regulatory system.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East brought in Ofcom in the previous Government’s Bill. It has a duty to reduce unnecessary regulation, which will assist the legislation. The Bill requires cost transparency and accounting separation to deal with many of the regulatory problems that my hon. Friends the Members for Southport and for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) raised in the debate.

Surprisingly, Opposition Members also raised concerns about the pensions solution. The hon. Member for Vauxhall said that it is possible to achieve a solution on pensions without a sale. It would be irresponsible to ask the taxpayer to take on an £8 billion deficit without securing private capital and disciplines and without transferring future risk from the taxpayer. This is a package deal, which is what Hooper argued for and what we are delivering.

Richard Hooper made it clear that action is needed if we are to secure the future of a universal postal service. His document, “Modernise or Decline”, sets out those options. When the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) questioned whether a privatised Royal Mail would threaten the universal service obligation, he was ignoring the evidence put forward by Sir Richard Hooper. I can only think that he has not read the Bill. If he had read it, he would know that it is all about safeguarding the universal postal service of Royal Mail and the Post Office, recognising the particular importance of those services to our rural communities.

The six-day, one-price-goes-anywhere universal service obligation is enshrined on the face of the Bill, but we have not stopped there. The Bill introduces new safeguards to protect that service, ensuring that any future change must be properly debated by Parliament, must retain the uniformity of the service and must take into account the interests of postal service users, which, of course, includes rural communities. The scaremongering of the Scottish nationalists flies in the face of both the facts and the text of the Bill.

Returning to the substance of today’s debate, despite our producing a Bill that is better than the previous Government’s Bill—better for Royal Mail employees’ pensions and better for the protection of the universal service—the Opposition are determined to oppose it. Where are the huge differences that are causing the Opposition such problems? We want to provide Royal Mail employees with shares, so workers can benefit from the prosperous future for Royal Mail that our reforms will enable. The previous Government talked about involving employees, but they argued with the unions about giving employees shares and then argued with themselves. This Government are united, and we are going to do it through the largest employee share scheme by percentage of shares of any major British privatisation. For the first time ever, I believe, we are mandating an employee share scheme on the face of a Bill. As a member of a party that championed employee share ownership for decades in opposition, I could not be more proud to present this radical measure to the House tonight. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who did so much to develop those issues when we were in opposition.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), who explained how important employee share ownership can be in driving productivity. He was concerned that only 10% of shares will go to the employee share scheme, but I can tell him that the Bill refers to “at least 10%”. I was pleased by the support for employee shares from my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). His chairmanship of the all-party group on employee ownership shows that he knows about that area. He raised a constituency case, which I will take up if he writes to me.

Another key difference between Labour’s Bill and our Bill is our mutualisation proposal for the Post Office. Sub-postmasters, Post Office employees and communities can all have a say in how their post offices are run. The Co-operative model is a huge example of the big society and something that the old Fabians would have classed as public ownership, but the Labour party is going to vote against the Bill.

Let me clarify the mutualisation proposals for the Opposition, who do not seem to understand what they are all about. Post Office Ltd, the national company that franchises to individual post offices and chains of post offices, would become a mutual if our proposals go ahead. We believe that having a national mutual similar to the Co-op would have many practical benefits and would align the incentives of sub-postmasters with those of the company and their main franchisor. When it comes to modernisation and putting services online, it is important to have aligned incentives.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Davey]

No, I am sorry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raised concerns about the conditions for mutualisation. Of course we will have to ensure that there is a viable post office network, otherwise we could not make mutualisation work, so that is one of our conditions. Clause 7 makes it clear that a mutualised post office network would have to be “for the public benefit”, so that is also a clear condition.

Despite the fact that our Bill is better for Royal Mail employees, Royal Mail, the Post Office, customers and the taxpayer, the Opposition still oppose it. What is their problem? The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, the former Minister of State for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, said that it is about ownership but he did not ask the next question: what is the difference between the shareholdings to which the previous Government and this Government were prepared to agree? That principle concerns about 0.2% of the shares—the extra shares that they were not prepared to sell but we are. The sale of those shares will free Royal Mail from Treasury control and will enable it to be the master of its own fate and to invest for the future without coming cap in hand to the taxpayer. New Labour has been dying for some years but with the opposition to this Bill, old Labour has returned. I thought that I would be in danger of being called Red Ed with the bail-out of the pension plan, but the real Red Ed is on the Opposition Benches—ideology before reality, dogma before common sense and, worst of all, vested interest before national interest.

The idea that public ownership has delivered a successful Royal Mail and post office network clearly is not right. Perhaps Opposition Members are aware that Royal Mail shed 65,000 jobs during the 13 years of Labour government, so public ownership did not deliver for workers. Let us consider the experience under privatisation around the world. Since Deutsche Post was floated in 2001, it has seen investment of £11.6 billion. That just will not be possible for Royal Mail if it remains in the public sector, but through our measures, it will become possible.

The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) made another accusation against the Bill—it would lead to post office closures. What a cheek! Ten post offices closed in his constituency under the previous Labour Government and about 5,000 post offices were shut in total. As so many colleagues have made clear throughout this debate, Labour is the party of post office closures. This Government will not make those same errors. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary today announced our £1.34 billion investment programme for the post office network. That money will not pay for a closure programme—we will not throw money down the drain as Labour did—but it will bring a lasting change to the network and will tackle the underlying economic issues it faces. That is why the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will see, when we make our full statement on policy for the post office network shortly, a Government working as one—joined-up government is what they used to call it.