Armed Forces Day

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in any debate that refers to the armed forces—it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, but this is a particular pleasure. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, for his commitment as a soldier, as a reservist and as a Minister.

I thank all those who wear or have worn the uniform, serving this great country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—as others have said, we are better together—through thick and thin. It is little wonder that our armed forces are the envy and measuring standard of the entire world. Our armed forces have supported us in times of peril—through two world wars, the troubles, Afghanistan and Iraq to name only a few. Today, they are stationed around the globe, carrying out work that we do not hear about, yet the world would be a worse place without their efforts and contributions. The blood that they shed and the burden they take upon themselves is all for you—I say that to everybody in the House—and for me as well. To think that they are not fully rewarded for their sacrifices and supported through their own times of peril is disappointing, to say the least.

I declare an interest—I should have done so at the beginning of my speech—as a former part-time solider. I served for 14 and a half years in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Territorial Army.

Just last Saturday, the gallant Minister was in Lisburn for Northern Ireland Armed Forces Day. It was a smashing day, as he rightly said. I have a request for him, or, in his absence, for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who will respond to the debate. Northern Ireland will be 100 years old in 2021; will Ministers consider a national Armed Forces Day in Northern Ireland to tie in with that centenary?

The armed forces are 9,900 trained personnel short of their Government-set target: the Royal Navy and Royal Marines are some 1,230 short of their 30,450 personnel target; the Royal Air Force is 1,740 short of its 31,750 personnel target; and the British Army is 6,930 short of its 82,000 personnel target.

We are fortunate in my constituency to have a strong tradition of service in all three of the services—the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army. Conscription was never needed because the recruitment was always there. We also have strong TA battalions and batteries in the town, with a new Royal Irish Regiment section in the Crawfordsburn Road centre in Newtownards. We have that service ethic, so it is important to give people those opportunities. We also have active cadets in all three services.

The House might wonder why I brought up those figures, but the link is clear: why would someone put their physical and mental health on the line for the minimum wage? Why would they leave their family and all those they love for months on end when their Government—my Government—cannot give them pay that reflects their sacrifice? It is little wonder that so many of our trained and elite leave the service and serve privately—the pay is quadruple that which the uniform pays. The shadow Secretary of State referred to pay, and she was absolutely right to—we need to think about that.

Why would someone take the minimum wage when, added to that, they now know that they could well be abandoned in later life should another armed regime such as the republicans seek to rewrite history? Would it not be fair to say that the treatment they can expect once they retire is the reason they are not joining? Just like soldier F, they have to contemplate the prospect of facing prosecution for doing their job. The Government have to do more to protect their soldiers. That issue has come forward on numerous occasions. Soldiers should be allowed to retire in peace; that is the least we can do for them. The Democratic Unionist party, of which I am proud to be a member and to speak on behalf of today, supports our armed forces. We will not watch silently as our armed forces are dragged on their knees to appear in court at the age of 75. The witch hunt must stop now.

Our soldiers cannot simply disobey orders. That is called insubordination, and they would be punished for it. They cannot win in that scenario. They face two choices: be punished by their superiors for disobeying orders and for not following the appropriate procedure, or be punished by the media agenda of the day and even by the judicial system. Why should they willingly have to sign up to that? They should not have to do so, but they do. I doubt soldier F knew that that was what he was signing up to. Our soldiers deserve better. The very least that they deserve for protecting us is the right to protection in the courts. The sacrifice that they make for all of us to sleep safely at night is immeasurable, yet that is how they are treated. On behalf of all those soldiers who face the prospect of an investigation, let us make it clear that we stand by them and support them in these legacy battles. I believe that there is a consensus of opinion in the House to support that view.

We should remember that the soldiers who did wrong were prosecuted during the troubles in the appropriate way through the Army. They did face justice. What they face now is not justice; it is unacceptable. It is a sop to a republican agenda, and the antithesis of justice. For all the sacrifices that they have made, it is appalling that they do not receive the support they need when they retire. Royal Irish veteran Robert McCartney of the charity Beyond the Battlefield has estimated that some 400 veterans attempt to take their own lives each year in Northern Ireland, 30 of whom succeed. Those statistics are accurate, and they reflect the concern that we have for our veterans in Northern Ireland. I commend Robert McCartney and many other charities such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, Help for Heroes, St Dunstan’s, and the Royal British Legion—they are almost too numerous to mention. They all help greatly, but we should be doing more to help our armed forces.

I do not think that there is one Member today who has not mentioned mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental issues that have come about because of things that have happened in the past.

[Albert Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman add to that list of charities the Mission to Seafarers, which does excellent work for UK shipping veterans both here in the capital city and across the UK and the globe?

Medical Aesthetics Industry: Regulation

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

Would the Minister consider making it so that under-18s could not have this treatment?

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Minister, you have less than two minutes.

Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland: Legacy Cases

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I inform hon. Members that I will call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 5.26 pm. The Minister will then have 10 minutes and the right hon. Gentleman who sponsored the debate will have two minutes to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

With my hon. Friend’s legal mind, she obviously succinctly focuses on the issues that we need to be aware of.

I believe that police officers involved in any case, wherever that may be, and who have not been afforded the protection of due process, should not be subjected to destructive and withering condemnations by any person who has a position of power. I believe that the ombudsman’s office has lost credibility and respectability, not simply among those who designate themselves as Unionists but among all who are right-thinking.

When I was sitting here and listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, I thought the release of a report that gave no right of reply, and that was ambiguous and condemning of officers at any time, was an indication of the intent of the ombudsman, as we sit by and see more and more focus on alleged state collusion. The allegations are made willy-nilly and without proof or evidence.

I can think of many atrocities during my lifetime. My right hon. Friend referred to atrocities, but not specifically. I can remember them from when I was a young man to the age that I am now. I think of Bloody Friday, when the IRA murdered innocent men, women and children across the whole of Belfast. In the Abercorn restaurant, where I used to eat as a young man, people were murdered while they were there having a meal—children and women butchered and destroyed.

There was the La Mon Hotel in my constituency, where again those who were in high positions of IRA leadership and who are now in positions of political leadership seem to have got away with what they have done. There are also the murders at Kingsmill. We all know the story about Kingsmill and the massacre there, and we know that there have been clear allegations of collusion by some members of the Garda Síochána in relation to that massacre—that is well-known. When we look to an ombudsman to investigate issues, those are the sorts of issues that they should investigate.

There was the Darkley massacre of men and women who were worshipping their God in their church. In my own family, there was the murder of my cousin, Kenneth Smyth, outside of Clady. Lexie Cummings was murdered outside Strabane. Four Ulster Defence Regiment men, three of whom I knew personally, were murdered in Ballydugan: John Birch; Steven Smart; Michael Adams; and Lance Corporal John Bradley. They were four young men who were murdered in the prime of their life.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he has two minutes to conclude his remarks?

[Jim Shannon]

I am coming to the end of them.

The last case that I will refer to is the murder of Louis Robinson, a detective constable who was kidnapped in South Armagh and murdered.

All of these things tell me that the ombudsman’s time could be better spent. I see constituents referring deserving issues to the police ombudsman regularly. All experience a refusal due to a lack of resources to investigate every complaint. Perhaps if the ombudsman was more determined to leave legacy issues to the designated body and if it investigated what was needed today, my constituents, who I represent, might find resolution and justice.

The time has passed for the Secretary of State, or for the Minister of State, who will respond to this debate, to intervene and appoint someone who has knowledge of Northern Ireland and of what the ombudsman’s role is—someone who at least has the grace to admit what that role is—and someone who will forgo what has been described as personal ambition of retribution. Instead of retraumatising officers who have seen what we cannot imagine, who have paid their dues to this country and who do not deserve to be accused of collusion at any stage to satisfy a republican rewrite of history, that individual should do his job as it is understood by all right-thinking people.

Santander Closures and Local Communities

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I should have mentioned in my earlier contribution that ATMs in Northern Ireland have been targeted by criminals and thieves. We have the largest number of ATM break-ins and thefts across the whole of Northern Ireland, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland has set up a taskforce to take that on. It is happening with regularity. The people who run the ATMs then say to themselves, “Why should we bother putting an ATM there at all if it’s going to be broken or stolen from?”

[Albert Owen]

That is a very strong point, but I think the banks themselves are ripping people off if they are not giving money. Cashzone machines are charging 95p per transaction. Often they are in poorer communities. The Which? research I referred to earlier highlights that almost two thirds of bank closures have been in the poorest areas of our country—those with an average household income of less than £26,000—so the closures affect our poorer constituents.

We need to look for solutions. We have heard a few ideas about financial hubs, for example. I seriously put to the Government the proposition of using Crown post offices, because we need to look for solutions. They are closing down these buildings, which they often own and which often lie empty for some time, as in Holyhead in my constituency. Such buildings could be used as financial hubs.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) will be very happy that I agree with our Labour party policy to re-establish a Post Office bank—a people’s bank—and to have regional banks so that regional business can benefit. We need to go beyond just blaming the banks; we need to have a proper Government policy and framework.

Crown Post Offices: Franchising

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Thursday 10th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on bringing this debate to the House. The fact that so many people are here indicates our interest in the subject and the importance of post offices to every constituency. I am pleased to bring—as I often do in Westminster Hall—a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate. I will speak about some of the success stories that we have had recently in post offices and their strategy. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She looks very lonesome in that top corner, but from my discussions with her, I understand that she is very much interested in the views we are putting forward. I know her response will be positive and I look forward to hearing it.

I will also make some comments about the high street, because it is important to have a high street. I was just talking to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), and I said to him that if a shop goes vacant and stays vacant for a while, it almost becomes infectious. It is important to ensure that somebody comes in quickly; otherwise, it will lead to the problems we are seeing across the UK mainland.

I hail from a rural area that has seen the closure of every rural bank in the last five years. The Scottish National party has highlighted the issue of rural banks closing, which is something I have seen in my constituency in the last five years. Any change or alteration of the post office greatly concerns me. We have no banks at all in the Ards peninsula, where I live. Almost every bank that has pulled out—except Ulster bank, which has created a mobile banking service and has a customer adviser in the area once a week—has pointed to the post office and urged people to make the most of the ability to lodge money and lift money through the post office. I have to say that that strategy has been successful in the Ards peninsula for a number of reasons. First, the post offices are there—I will explain how we have been able to keep them over the years—and secondly, two credit unions have opened in Portaferry and Kircubbin, which give some banking opportunities and supplement other facilities.

The figures in the background information may be a wee bit deceptive—I say that gently and with sincerity to those who did it. Some 111 Crown post offices have closed and 1,008 agency post offices have closed. Attempts have been made to build that up by using the outreach service, which can help a bit, but does not take away from the main issue. The role of a post office is not just to do monetary things. Other hon. Members have said that post offices should be doing more where they can, and that is one of the things that I want to look at. What can they offer? Can I do my driving licence there? Can I do my passport there? Can I pay some bills there? Can I do other things? That is what we need to do. I am not sure that the outreach service makes that happen. Therefore, I suggest very gently that the outreach alternative is not really where we are. A well-run network of rural post offices is needed.

I am very aware of any changes to the services offered and I am supportive of colleagues who are losing branches to what has been described to me as privatisation by stealth. That is why I support this debate. I am here to register my support for the post offices and to support those hon. Members who are probably having more difficulties in their constituency than I have in mine because of some of the success we have had.

The briefing from the Communication Workers Union, which I am sure we all received, is clear:

“The Post Office Ltd uses public money to finance the closure and franchising programme.

Everything from compromise agreements to get rid of existing staff (£13 million in 2014-15 alone), to refurbishments on stores it then franchises (£4.6 million was spent on 39 branches), and installing post office counters in franchisees’ premises (the post office refuses to disclose this expenditure), are met by the public. Yet, in return, the public receive a reduced service.”

That is the concern we all share, as hon. Members have said. It continues:

“While Crown offices represent a small share of the overall network, they have historically brought in between 10-20% of the Post Office’s overall revenue”—

a significant amount that cannot be ignored—

“and so any further closures could jeopardise the future of the network.

There is no evidence of respite from the slash and burn approach either, as the Post Office Ltd announced in July that they want to attract new applicants to set up ‘New Network Locations’ in 450 postcode areas throughout the UK.”

That perhaps unsettles the present franchise and network of post offices, as well.

“This initiative will have a substantial and far-reaching implication on the future of every flagship Crown office and Crown office job, as well as impact on Postmasters in sub Post Offices across the network many of whom are already reporting they are struggling financially.”

The two independent reports to which some hon. Members referred—one by Consumer Focus from 2012 and another by Citizens Advice from 2016—concluded that the previous franchising of Crown offices to WHSmith resulted in longer queuing and service times, inferior customer service and advice, poorer disabled access and a reduced number of counter positions. Those facts tell the story. If a service is going to be provided, it should be a good service. If the service is run down and secondary, by its very nature, that leads to the further reduction of the Post Office.

Alongside that, the closure and franchise programme results in the loss of experienced staff, as hon. Members have said. The sub-post office managers in the peninsula that I represent have historically been second to none and we have been truly blessed, but part of that is that they have invested in their businesses. It is not the big firms such as WHSmith that have been offered the franchises, but the smaller shop groups. That has enabled post offices to be retained, because there is an investment, but there also has to be a wage for the sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses to be able to continue running them.

Having post offices in shops and garages across the peninsula is one way that we have made it work. Someone signing on to work for another company and not as a postmaster or postmistress may not affect quality of the service, but it means the loss of what people see as a community asset. I think all hon. Members have referred to and understood the importance of the community asset that we have.

I have lived on the Ards peninsula for all but four years of my life. It is a close community that has grown, with many people coming to live and retire there. Over the years, the post office has been the cog at its core—a central point for meeting friends. It is also a central point for saying, “You know something? Mrs Jones hasn’t come in this week to collect her money or make a transaction.” The people at the post office know that and then, as they often do, they will call out to see if she is okay. There is a critical community aspect to the post office that cannot be ignored, which is neighbour looking out for neighbour, as we do in this House as representatives.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the social service as well as the postal service. There are also cash-handling services that post offices provide for small businesses. Wherever they transfer to, that service is not available.

Welsh Affairs

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

I will take the hon. Lady’s word for it. However, I will say that the Prime Minister had told the House on several occasions that she was not going to hold a general election, but she did. She said that she wanted to put her trust in the people of the United Kingdom, and they voted overwhelmingly against a hard Brexit.

Before moving on to Brexit, particularly the links with the Republic of Ireland, I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the island of Ireland on winning the grand slam this weekend, Wales for being the runners-up and a third Celtic nation on coming third. Eddie Jones’s smirk was wiped off his face.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman prompted me to intervene at this point. I wish everyone a belated happy St Patrick’s day for Saturday. We know that when the Blarney stone is turned the right way, we will have the opportunity for good weather, and we had a great victory on Saturday as well. The Irish team do their talking on the pitch, unlike the England rugby coach, who does his talking—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Shannon, I am the most lenient at letting you in, but I think the world already knows about the Irish team and how successful they were. We do not need it to be echoed again.

Serious Fraud Office

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Owen. I apologise for not being here on time. I had a meeting with the—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

No excuses.

[Jim Shannon]

I am just explaining the reason—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

You are running out of excuses, Mr Shannon. Just carry on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on making a very good case with lots of knowledge. His immense knowledge has been tremendous to have.

The role the Serious Fraud Office plays is essential and the House should ensure that it continues. The SFO initially had a financial threshold for its cases of £1 million, which was increased to £5 million. However, such thresholds soon became outdated, and the current director has published a statement of principle to make clear the main factors he takes into account when considering a case. We all know what those are: whether the apparent criminality undermines UK plc commercial or financial interests in general and those of the City of London in particular; whether the actual or potential financial loss involved is high; whether the actual or potential economic harm is significant; whether there is a significant public interest element; and whether there is any new species of fraud.

Current cases include, as other Members have said, investigations into the manipulation of the LIBOR rate; the recapitalisation deal by Barclays bank with Qatar at the height of the financial crisis; alleged bribes paid for the award of contracts relating to Rolls-Royce; alleged false accounting relating to Tesco; alleged bribery of public officials relating to Alstom; and alleged bribes paid to induce customer orders relating to GlaxoSmithKline. The list goes on and on.

Members have mentioned whistleblowing, and I myself have referred a whistleblowing incident to the SFO. Although it did not reach the aforementioned level, it was passed on to the financial regulatory authority. There must be a way to deal with the big firms; the individuals—the whistleblowers of this world—cannot take on such cases themselves. The SFO is essential in helping to take on the big firms. We have all watched or heard of the film “Erin Brockovich”, in which the David is able to take on the Goliath, but that is not the norm. The norm is that litigation costs are out of this world and, as a consequence, wrong is allowed to take place.

I fully support the SFO and hope I have made that clear. Indeed, its ability to look into cases should be much wider, and should include the case that I referred to it, which was of major importance at the time. However, there must be value for money and accountability for public spending, and the public must rest assured that there is no way to deal with those issues other than with the funding that is required.

Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about how the core budget can be supplemented by blockbuster funding, and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) mentioned that song from many years ago. He referred to hairstyles; I can refer to the days when I had hair. Indeed, I suspect that you remember those days as well, Mr Owen.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Absolutely.

[Jim Shannon]

It is always good to look back and remember what we had in the past.

The core budget can be supplemented by the blockbuster funding—that is clear—but if we are still recovering those large amounts of money, can that money go to the centre and can those recoveries be publicised, Minister, to show value for money? It is all about how the system works and how it works best.

I agree with the report from Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service, which found that the blockbuster funding model does not represent value for money and prevents the SFO from building future capability and capacity. I understand the reasons and the thinking within that. Temporary and contract staff are often more expensive than permanent staff, and managing surge capacity is a constant drain on human resources and other staff. Increased core funding would provide the SFO with the ability to build capacity and capability in-house and lead to less reliance on blockbuster funding. I agree with that reasoning, and I think that other Members have expressed that also. Minister, I look forward to your addressing those issues to our satisfaction.

In a previous life, I worked as a local councillor—for some 26 years—and often queried the use of long-term temporary contracts for staff supplied through agencies because of the cost increase, often going through the pros and cons of the issue. Although I understand the rationale of needing to grow or shrink depending on the size of the case, a larger base to begin with could—would, I believe—save money and provide job security for those with the specialised know-how. There must always be the ability to access blockbuster funding for cases such as LIBOR, which was an extremely transparent case, but there should not be a standard top-up that excuses the need to do what every Department from Health to Work and Pensions has done—cost-cut, look at efficiency measures and see whether staffing arrangements are adequate.

In conclusion, and ever mindful of the timescale that you set me, Mr Owen, I do not believe that what I have just set out is happening in the SFO. I put on record my wholehearted support for the body, but I believe that it must learn to cut costs like the rest of us. I agree that that can be done through a larger core budget—that is where we start, and the Minister might refer to it—and through the ability then to apply for blockbuster funding in exceptional cases, not just as a matter of note or opportunity. Thank you, Mr Owen.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I now call the Front-Bench spokespersons, starting with Kirsten Oswald.

Tibet

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I am not aware of what the First Minister does, but I suggest that we should have done so and that he needs to do so. Similarly, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned direct contact and using all available opportunities. I know that the Minister who is here today does it, and I am sure that he will outline such issues.

Even children in Tibet face abuses of their freedom and human rights. Tibetans are not free to protest or speak openly about their situation, and even peaceful demonstrations are met with heavy-handed military crackdowns. In 2008, thousands of Tibetans staged the largest protests in Tibet for over 50 years, and demonstrations swept across the entire Tibetan plateau. Chinese authorities arrested an estimated 6,000 protesters; about 1,000 of them are still unaccounted for. Where are they? What questions have the Government asked about those forgotten people and forgotten prisoners—if they are still alive?

We are all aware of the Tibetan monks who, horrifically, have set fire to themselves as a method of protest to highlight these issues. Every one of us can remember those horrific, horrendous stories of people driven to extremes to express themselves and to seek liberty, the democratic process and the right to religious freedom through their deaths.

Prisons in Tibet are full of people detained for simply expressing their desire for freedom. People have been arrested and sentenced to prison for peaceful acts, such as distributing leaflets or sending information abroad about events in Tibet. We take such things for granted in this country because they are part of our democratic right—we are speaking about them democratically here today. Yet those everyday freedoms—those small acts of democracy—that we enjoy, as part of the great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Tibet can lead to imprisonment and even torture. The clear violation of human rights is shocking. As a country, through this debate today and through our Government, we have to take action.

Reporters Without Borders ranked China 175th out of the 180 countries on its press freedom index. There are more foreign journalists in North Korea than in Tibet. Despite what by our own standards we can describe only as atrocities, this week a top Chinese official in Brussels told reporters that China does not need lessons on human rights from the EU; well, actually, it does. Li Junhua—putting a Northern Ireland accent on a Chinese name—a director-general in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, has said that China has its own model of human rights. It does, but that model does not conform to the model that we have in the free west. He claimed that China had a clear understanding of how human rights will be carried out in his country and was confident of its own model.

The US diplomat Sarah Sewall recently claimed that there was

“not a degree of freedom for Tibetans within China”

after meeting Tibetan refugees from Nepal and India and gleaning first-hand information about their lives in the country before they had to flee because of persecution. Clearly the ongoing hardships and crimes against them that Tibetans still face on a daily basis back up Ms Sewall’s point. Tibetans cannot enjoy any freedoms, which in turn means they are denied their basic human rights. That is the issue. The Chinese may well measure their version of human rights differently from those of us in the EU and the USA, but that does not mean that we should simply sit back and accept the situation, because ultimately it is not good enough.

It is not good enough that people are denied their freedoms—freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to name just a few. People have fought and died to secure those rights; in 2014, Tibetans are either fleeing, being imprisoned or being killed to try to secure them. We must let the Tibetans know that they are not struggling in vain or suffering in silence. We must do all that we can—at Westminster, in Brussels and on the world stage—to persuade China to change its oppressive ways in its bid for political support.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I will be calling the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 10.40 am at the latest.

Fuel Duty

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

No. I want to make progress. The serious problem is that our constituents are paying 15p per litre more for petrol under this Government than they paid under the previous Government. Government Members can use nonsense hypotheticals, and say, “It would be 10p more expensive under a Labour Government,” but the fuel escalator was introduced by the Major Government. We could use the same argument, and say, “Had we stuck to that, fuel would by so many pence more expensive.” The reality is that it is 15% more expensive today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

I will not give way—I want to make progress.

VAT is hurting families and businesses. Hauliers and small businesses in my constituency are paying extra fuel duty and VAT on their fuel. The impact is on goods—[Interruption.] The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), says from a sedentary position that they get the money back, but he should listen to businesses. They tell me that fuel duty and VAT impacts on their businesses. Are they wrong? He needs to listen to businesses rather than make silly party political points in the Chamber. That is the reality of the situation: they pay more for fuel.

There is a double whammy because, as the Minister said, businesses also pay more for raw materials. They are being badly hurt. The debate should concentrate on what our constituents are telling us.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I will give way once more, and then I need to make progress.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland, 25% of every worker’s wage is spent on fuel getting to and from work. Another 10% is spent on heating oil. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the VAT increase should not go ahead for that reason, and that concessions should be made for people in Northern Ireland, where the price of fuel is higher than anywhere else in the UK?

[Albert Owen]

The motion calls for a freeze on duty, but Labour introduced a previous debate on temporarily cutting VAT to help hard-working businesses and people across the country. Businesses are being hurt.

We rightly say that road transport is hit hard, but ferry companies—this is a serious point that nobody raises—must, because of the high prices, put fares up and cut back on the time their service takes so they can cut fuel costs. The problems that British businesses face are real. In my part of the world, the extra fuel duties mean problems getting goods to market and getting people to the workplace. This is a real issue for real people. I hope hon. Members remember that tonight.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned periphery areas. Northern Ireland has the highest fuel duty in the UK, but it is closely followed by periphery areas of Wales. The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who is not in his place, made a political point about council tax in Wales. The reality is that the Government cut revenue and capital spend in Wales, so those authorities have to make their decisions, but they are not responsible for fuel tax. Fuel tax lies at the door of the Government. Incumbents have the opportunity to increase fuel duty when they believe that is necessary and to reduce it when it hurts business and our constituents. Now is the time for this Government to think seriously about that.

The Minister is listening—he says the Government always listen and that they are in listening mode—but he needs to take action, and to tell businesses tonight whether or not he intends do so. It is no use the Chancellor and Government Back Benchers getting together, cloak and dagger, to say that the motion is opportunism. The reality is that many of those same Back Benchers have introduced the same motion and supported it in a Back-Bench debate. We need consistency from Government Members, because they know their constituents are feeling the pinch.

Offshore Wind Generation (North Wales)

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have just come from a meeting of industrialists, and they highlighted that very point. The Aluminium Federation was present, and it said that international companies are considering pulling out of the UK because of uncertainty about the future. The Minister will be aware of that, and he will try to work with others to allay the fears and create the confidence needed for the future. It is not warm words that will heat our homes or drive industry, but action, and we need to see that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to be involved in this debate. The hon. Gentleman referred to jobs in Wales; other parts of the United Kingdom will also gain greatly. In my Northern Ireland constituency, Harland and Wolff will benefit from jobs that come from the wind turbines in Wales. There are benefits for the whole United Kingdom: is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again in this important debate. Will he indicate how councils and the Welsh Assembly came to terms with how offshore wind generation affects the fishing industry? Some locations in Northern Ireland are coming up shortly, and one of the great issues for us is how they will affect the fishing industry on the north coast of Antrim and in my constituency of Strangford. How did the Welsh Government address that issue to ensure that the fishing sector can continue?

[Albert Owen]

I cannot speak for the Welsh Government, but I can speak for myself. I am an ex-seafarer, so I understand some of the conditions at sea, and navigation is affected, as well as fishing. I respect that, but the consultations we have had in north Wales, and will have on future developments, contain important environmental impact studies. The marine environment is taken very seriously, and wind is sensitive. Oil is being drilled in the North sea, and I think wind generation is less intrusive than some of those projects. We have to get the balance right, but the impact has been taken seriously. If we are serious about developing renewable resources, we have to use them wisely. Wind is abundant in north-west Britain and north-east Northern Ireland, so we have to go ahead, but it is a sensitive issue.

As I was saying about Gwynt y Môr and the other already-developed offshore wind farms, the Celtic array is a round 3 Irish sea project, and I want to focus the Minister’s mind on that because of its sheer scale. As he may know, the Celtic array is a joint venture between Centrica and DONG Energy that will have the capacity to produce 2.2 GW and will service an estimated 1.7 million homes. The Celtic array will be located 19 km off the north-east coast of Anglesey, 34 km off the Isle of Man and very close to the coastlines of Northern Ireland and north-west England. Depending on the turbines that are chosen—this is important because technology is moving fast—there will be between 150 and 400 of them, and if the technology continues to develop in the same way, they might produce 6 MW each. So the turbines will be huge. The Celtic array includes array cables, export cables and substations located offshore, where they will be less intrusive. The connection to the grid, which is expected to be in Anglesey, will be made with a few cables, rather than the large amount of infrastructure that is needed for onshore in coastal areas that many people oppose.

Gwynt y Môr has already created jobs, and I want to highlight a number of them, because they represent a significant investment. Holyhead-based Turbine Transfers, which is a subsidiary of Holyhead Towing, has been awarded a £10 million contract to provide transfer vessels that will operate from the port of Mostyn in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). That is a local company with an international reputation founded by an entrepreneurial family, and it will benefit from the investment, which could bring more than £80 million and much-needed jobs to the Welsh economy.

Looking forward to the Celtic array, we need bigger infrastructure, bigger vessels and bigger port capacity. I will deal specifically with the port of Holyhead in my constituency, as it is the largest seaport on the western seaboard and, as a natural deep-water harbour, it has huge potential. I was disappointed by this Government’s decision, after the previous Chancellor’s announcement that £60 million would be set aside for essential port development so that—I stress this—United Kingdom ports could benefit. That was a missing link. We have manufacturing on land and generation offshore, but bringing them together needs port development, and the £60 million was set aside for that purpose. In October 2010, the coalition Government decided to make the moneys available to English ports only, with the Barnett consequential going to Wales and other nations of the United Kingdom. That put Wales at a serious disadvantage, because the consequential for the whole of Wales is about £3 million. Anybody who understands port development knows that that is a small drop in the ocean, so this seriously undermines Wales’s potential to develop.

The irony, reading the statement from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, is that much of the money allocated to English ports remains unspent. I ask the Minister, in his own joking manner, to pass it over to Wales as quickly as possible if he can. My serious point is that he should go back to Government, argue the case that the United Kingdom ports remain a reserved responsibility of the UK Government, get a grip on the situation and, from this Westminster Parliament, help Welsh ports. That is what we are here for: to represent the views of our Welsh constituents. We are losing out as a consequence of that decision, and it is unfair. As the new Secretary of State said in a response to me, if the Welsh Assembly Government were funding this, the money would have to be drawn from education and health budgets, which would be unfair. The money was originally intended for UK ports. UK ports are a reserved matter and this should be done fairly.

Fuel Poverty

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen]

Of course household income is an issue. In areas in which GDP is low, household incomes are not necessarily low; such indicators do not necessarily go together. There are joint incomes in rural areas. Many people feel that they have to have a supplementary income to pay the bills. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right; in some of the more deprived areas of the United Kingdom, fuel poverty is worse. There are also other factors such as rurality and the problems faced by areas on the periphery of the United Kingdom, which is something that I will discuss later.

I welcome the Ofgem inquiry into the big six, which looked at their price mechanism and their excessive profits, and we must keep up the pressure on the companies. Indeed the Select Committee, of which I am a member, met Ofgem yesterday. A few weeks ago, we spoke to the big six. I make no bones about it; excessive profits are being made and they should be curtailed. We must give the regulator teeth to bring that about. We have peaks and troughs, and the inquiries always seem to come when the prices are subdued for a period of time and then there are the excessive profits. We have not been able to prove that through the Competition Commission and various other mechanisms, but it does happen and real people are paying the price.

[Jim Shannon]

One example can be found in Northern Ireland. The oil comes in through Belfast. We have variations in price across the Province. The price for 800 litres of fuel can vary by as much as £20 to £25. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that it is an obscenity that companies are making excessive profits while people are experiencing difficulties. We need an extensive inquiry and some rules and regulations from the regulator.

[Albert Owen]

Yes. I will come on to the off-grid as well to provide some balance. I stress that Ofgem is doing a good job, but it needs more teeth. I know that we will have the opportunity to discuss both that matter and how we can beef up the regulator’s powers in forthcoming energy Bills.

I am a big supporter of winter fuel payments. The previous Select Committee included that matter in its report, to which this Government provided a response. Some people think that such payments should be modified, targeted or means-tested, but the benefit is a huge success. It is a substantial payment that is easy to claim and easily understood. I believe in universal benefits. As a nation, people contribute to the national pot, so that benefits can be given to people in need. I understand that we need a mixed package of targeted benefits in addition to the universal benefit. This particular benefit has been a huge success, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the Government have no intention of changing it. I know that there is a cost element to it, but the benefits far outweigh any negatives in this area.

I realise that there are other Members who want to speak, but it is important to highlight some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hexham about off-grid gas supply—indeed, a number of interventions have been about that matter. Households that are not connected to the gas mains experience a double whammy; many of them are in periphery areas and pay extra money for petrol and diesel, as well as having to pay more for domestic heating fuel. We need to consider that issue. For instance, liquefied petroleum gas is far more expensive than on-mains gas, and we have heard much anecdotal evidence in many debates about the huge rise in price for domestic oil and domestic LPG.

I do not believe that the Office of Fair Trading has been sufficiently proactive on this issue. I heard what the hon. Member for Hexham said about the importance of giving the OFT anecdotal evidence, which is one way forward although it is a cumbersome process. There should be a single regulator to look at gas and electricity prices, and it should consider both the grid and off-grid supply. We should have a single regulatory body, and I ask the Minister to consider that proposal for the future. There should be a single regulator looking at all domestic fuels with a view to regulating the off-grid supply as well as the grid supply, and that regulator should have real teeth and real responsibility to look after the most vulnerable people in our society, which is what the existing regulator was set up to do. In many areas, a huge number of people are not on the grid—in some areas, a majority of people are not on the grid—and they are suffering disproportionately as a result.

As the Minister may know, I have been campaigning on this issue for a long time. However, I have been frustrated by the responses that I have received from the regulator, from this Government and previous Governments, and from the gas distribution networks, agencies and energy retailers. There is no joined-up thinking on this issue—there is a blockage and things just do not happen. People who live within a short distance of gas mains are not connected to them. I am not talking about isolated properties. I am talking about villages of considerable size and hamlets that are close to the gas mains, but there is no incentive for them to be joined up, although to be fair to the Department of Energy and Climate Change the Government have had some schemes, agencies and partnerships over a number of years that have worked on that issue.

The differential between those who pay off the grid and those who pay on the grid is so great that there should be some real investment and a mechanism to provide connection to the grid, so that those people who are not on the grid can have additional choice. Choice is what I am talking about. If people wish to remain off the gas mains, it is a matter for them, but at the moment those people do not have any choice in the matter and are being hammered by domestic oil and LPG prices.

I hope that the Minister will act on this issue. I understand that new developments will need renewable sources of energy built into them when they are constructed, which I fully support—ground source pumps and other measures may be the future. However, we are talking about hamlets and villages that have been off the gas mains for an awfully long time. When coal was cheap, for historical reasons, it was okay for those communities; there was not the disparity that there is now between the price that they paid and the price that those on the mains supply paid. Today, however, because of the lack of regulation and the inability to connect people to the gas mains, there is a huge disparity between those who are on the mains supply and those who are not, and there is a huge amount of extra fuel poverty in those areas that are not on the mains supply. So it is something that we need to work on collectively. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that issue.

I want to make an overtly political point about fuel prices, which concerns the price of petrol at the pump in periphery areas. The extra fuel poverty that I have just referred to was made worse in January, because of the additional 2.5% hike in VAT, which is really hurting people. I am not talking about people who use their cars just for pleasure. I am talking about people who use their cars because there is a lack of adequate public transport in their areas and because they have to take their children to school or to leisure activities on a daily basis and the only means of transport is a larger car. Also, those people work in a communal fashion, as it were, by giving lifts to other people. Those people are paying—