Contracts for Difference Scheme

Debate between Angela Eagle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 19th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate, which is timely, given the outcome of the recent AR5. He presented it with the degree of detail and precision that the House now expects of him. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela, albeit I am mildly disappointed that you are in the Chair; I had rather hoped that you might have moved on to other things by now, but I guess that is politics, and it was not necessarily to be.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Such is democracy.

[Mr Carmichael]

I want to pick up where the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) left off. While there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the conduct of AR5, it is worth a short pause to consider the successes of contracts for difference. As a mechanism for deployment and growth in renewable energy, they have been remarkably successful. Ultimately, however, they are a tool like any other, and the quality of the product that we have at the end of it is dependent on the use to which that tool is put.

I hope that AR5 is a warning shot—if I may put it that way without mixing too many metaphors—and that in future there will be a better dialogue between Government and industry, because the outcome that we got was pretty much the outcome that the various industries had been predicting. It is, I think, for the Government to keep engaging with industry to learn lessons and see the continued growth in our renewables. Quite apart from the need to meet our net zero targets, for which the growth of renewable energy will be absolutely critical and essential, the question of energy security will be dependent on this. Had we taken some of these decisions earlier, pushed them with more vigour and better resource and used the tools differently, we might be in a better place for energy security today, but we are where we are, and what is important now is that we are able to build the industries for the future.

I will concentrate and focus in particular on the development of marine renewables—that is probably the least surprising news of the day for the Minister. That is something in which I have had 20-plus years of involvement, and it is important to my constituency, playing host as we do not just to the European Marine Energy Centre, but to a number of successful projects in the AR4 and AR5 rounds. The decision to include in AR4 a ringfenced pot of £20 million for tidal stream energy generation was absolutely transformative for the industry. I was in a call with the people from EMEC this morning, and although it was not the purpose of the call—we came to it during the course of the conversation —they were talking about how the development that we have had as a consequence of AR4, and now AR5, has helped them to grow their business case. There are still issues that have to be dealt with—the Minister knows some of them; they are not germane to the debate—but that shows what is possible when the right decisions are made here.

By following that with £10 million minima in AR5, which led to the deployment of 50 MW of capacity, the sector saw an uptake that exceeded the 10 MW minimum. That demonstrates the way in which the sector is ready and able to go further to help the Government meet their declared policy aims. We have 90 MW deployed in 11 projects across Scotland and Wales.

What more do we need to do? Obviously, there will need to be a continued ringfenced pot. We are not yet at the stage of commercialisation where marine renewables would be capable of competing with the other technologies in the auction, so that continued ringfencing will be important. We also need bigger minima in the next round—the AR6—and the sector keeps saying that it wants a target for deployment in the region of 1 GW by 2035. Again, that should be attractive to the Government. If we are to learn the lessons of AR5, listening to the sector—seeing what it comes forward with and what it wants to produce—will be absolutely critical. There is one way in which the Minister can demonstrate that he is listening to and engaging with the industry, and perhaps restoring some of the confidence that was damaged as a result of AR5.

The opportunities are still here and, particularly in relation to tidal stream, need now to be followed by opportunities for wave power—there has to be a route to market for wave power. Tidal stream has demonstrated what is possible; it is now for the Minister to look at how we allow other sectors and developing technologies to come forward and take the same opportunities that were given to tidal stream. The lesson of AR4 and AR5 and the ringfenced pot for tidal stream is that the mechanism works. If it can work for tidal stream, surely it can work for wave power as well.

There are some opportunities here. We have taken a bit of a knock with AR5, but that should not lead us to challenge in any fundamental way the suitability and durability of contracts for difference. I hope that the Government will continue with CfDs, but that in using that tool we find routes by which we can engage better with the industry—as the Government should do in the interests of meeting their own targets and aspirations.

Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme

Debate between Angela Eagle and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Post Office Historical Shortfall Scheme.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) to his place as a substitute for the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who has executive departmental responsibility for this issue.

I have a number of specific concerns about the Post Office’s administration of the historical shortfall scheme, which I will come to in due course, but I want to say something to the Minister and his colleagues in Government. If he takes nothing else away from the debate, I want him to take this away: from assisting constituents in relation to the HSS, it has become apparent to me and, I have no doubt, to others in the House that the culture in the Post Office still leaves a great deal to be desired. It is probably not unique for the Post Office to have a poor culture, but I say that because it has been accepted by Ministers. In fact, it is now a universally accepted truth that what happened in relation to the Horizon scandal was allowed to happen, and happened for as long as it did, because of the culture in the Post Office.

My basic concern is that if the culture is still not right, such a scandal could happen again. This is an opportunity for Ministers. We do not expect them to be responsible for the day-to-day management of the scheme or anything else in the Post Office—there are plenty of people who are rather handsomely paid to do that—but Ministers can and should insist on seeing that there has been a demonstrable change of culture.

Pride Month

Debate between Angela Eagle and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). Her own testimony highlights the importance of a debate like this. It was a very simple message that everybody should feel comfortable telling people who they are or what they are. It is as simple as that. It tells us quite a lot about the different influences that we have had in this country down the centuries—she touched on the role of the Churches and there are doubtless others—that it should seem remarkable, or something to be celebrated, that we are able to do that.

It is important that we have a debate like this in this House, because people across the country and, indeed, in other parts of the world look to us, as parliamentarians and as people in public life, to give a lead, and it is incumbent on us to take a lead. I would suggest that holding a debate like this is one small way in which we can do that. All of us who are in public life have a responsibility to understand that our words always have consequences. For those who are not here, who are not espousing views of equality and inclusion and who are expressing homophobic views—whether they are parliamentarians, people in public life or just individual citizens—it is not the people who are espousing those views who are responsible necessarily for the homophobic attacks and for the angst of young people who do not feel comfortable coming out. However, we have to understand that, when people in public life espouse those views, they legitimise those who will throw the punches and the kicks. That is why there is a responsibility on us all—in this House, particularly—to send a clear message that nobody in this country should feel constrained in saying who they are or what they are.

We have made significant progress over the years. The ending of section 28 was a significant moment. I was here at the time and led for my party on the creation of civil partnerships and then on the creation of equal marriage. These have all been significant events, and it is right that we should celebrate them. I was absolutely delighted, and genuinely moved, to see just a few weeks ago so many Facebook posts from friends of mine who are gay men and have given blood for the first time. That is in many ways a small and mundane part of everything, but it sends a genuine message of inclusion. To exclude people from making that kind of contribution to their community on the basis of their sexuality was a wrong that was overdue for righting, and I am delighted that it has been done.

Of course, there is still more we can do within our own communities, and as we look around the world, as others have said, we see that there is a lot more to be done. I have to mention in particular the proposals coming from the Hungarian Government at the moment that would create their own version of section 28. I wish they would learn from the experience of those of us in this country of how section 28 operated and the effect it had, especially on vulnerable people who, as a consequence of the operation of that law, did not feel that they were able to be open about and engaged in their sexuality.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the point of section 28, and the point of this Hungarian law, is precisely to stigmatise people for the perceived political advantage of one side of an argument?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely acknowledge that, and I do more than acknowledge it: I agree with it absolutely, and I think we are right to call that out. To use someone’s sexuality against them for a political purpose, or using their skin colour or other defining characteristics—something with which they are born—has to be just about as low as it is possible to go. I remember Albert Lutuli saying in the context of the anti-apartheid struggle that apartheid was the only absolute tyranny, because it discriminated against people for something they had absolutely no power to change, which was the colour of their skin. For all of us, our sexuality is something with which we are born: it is not a choice. I will argue with people in all parts of this House, and possibly even on my party’s own Benches, about the choices that we make, but we should not be divided on the basis of things about which we have absolutely no choice.

I do not want to detain the House for too long, but I want to place on record a small piece of Pride history, which is that last weekend, we celebrated a Pride first. We had the most northerly Pride yet in the United Kingdom when we had the Pride festival in Kirkwall in Orkney. It was a joyous occasion—it was obviously curtailed as a consequence of covid regulations, but to see so many Orcadians out there, talking about their pride in who they are, was a truly remarkable moment. Walking around Kirkwall town centre, seeing so many shops and businesses with Pride flags in their window, was a tremendous signal that everybody was valued as part of our community—we have a very strong sense of community in Orkney—and that that inclusion was there for all, regardless of their sexual orientation.

I look forward to having the same first again next year, because we will have the new most northerly Pride in the United Kingdom when Shetland Pride is celebrated next June. A tremendous amount of work and planning is already going into that, and I commend those who are responsible both for Orkney Pride last weekend and for the planning that is going into Shetland Pride for June 2022 for everything they are doing to send a signal that in every community, right across the country, the right of individuals to be included on their own terms is inalienable. It is something that we should celebrate, and something that we do, in fact, celebrate here today.

Palestinian School Textbooks: EU Review

Debate between Angela Eagle and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on having secured this debate. I think that she, like I—and, I suspect and hope, everybody in this debate—holds the view that we would ultimately wish to see a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine. I gently suggest to her and others that if we are ever to achieve that, the role of this country has to be limited. For us simply to take one side or another in that debate just serves to make things worse: it does not help us move towards that two-state solution.

I say that because I am slightly concerned that the hon. Lady seemed quite happy to take various examples from the Georg Eckert Institute report that it had concluded were problematic and wrong. The report also found instances of antisemitism—that has been acknowledged—but found that others had, in fact, been removed, which represents the progress to which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) referred. However, I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne and others that if we accept the report and the bona fides and independence of the Georg Eckert Institute, we do not do great service by picking and choosing those parts of the report that we like. The report’s overall conclusion, having examined extensively the material that was made available to the institute, was that the materials of the Palestinian Authority did conform to UNESCO standards. That is important. I would hope that nobody who has read that report would say that the materials were beyond reproach, but the conclusion reached by the institute through its independent analysis should not be dismissed so lightly.

One of my great frustrations about this debate, as with others about Israel-Palestine, is what I generally call what-aboutery: when someone says, “Here’s something bad that was done by one side,” and somebody else pops up and says, “Well, what about the other side?” I am going to resist the temptation to indulge in what-aboutery, but I want to put on the record my concern that there are instances of that, and there has not been the same rigorous analysis of educational standards within Israel. It is often said, and other analyses have highlighted, that maps often include the lands of the west bank as part of Israel as a whole, rather than the 1967 borders, which are generally regarded internationally as the ones to adhere to.

If we are to make a difference in this debate, it has to be out of a genuine concern for the education of young people and children in Palestine today. It is a sobering fact that a 15-year-old in Gaza will have endured five major wars, as well as several others, in their lifetime. Civil society groups have to run training programmes for Palestinian children on explosive remnants of war. Just think of that: if hon. Members sent their children to school in Gaza, part of what they would be taught, regardless of what is in the curriculum, is how to deal with exploded and unexploded ordinances. That is the day-to-day lived experience of children in Gaza.

Just this week, the Save the Children Fund issued its report on the impact of home demolition on Palestinian children, titled “Hope under the rubble”. I hope that the Minister has a copy of it, and that if he has not read it yet, he soon will. As the hon. Member for Cheadle rightly said, young children absorb their lived experience, and their education goes well beyond what they see in the classroom.

Let me give a few key findings from that report. Some 80% of children feel abandoned by the world and have lost faith in the ability of anyone, from their parents to authorities and the international community, to protect them and their rights. Some 78% of older children said they feel hopeless when they think about the future. Some younger children told the Save the Children Fund that they often take their toys to school out of fear that they might lose them in the rubble during the day. Some 70% of children reported feeling socially isolated, with no connection with their communities and land after losing their home. Some 60% of children reported that their education had been jeopardised or interrupted following the demolition.

If we really are concerned about the impact on young Palestinians, I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and in particular to the Minister, that we should be considering that many Palestinian children may soon be fortunate to have any schools at all in which to have textbooks, because the hard fact is that no fewer than 53 Palestinian schools are slated for demolition by the Israeli Government. If there are no schools, frankly the content of textbooks becomes pretty academic.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I am sorry to say that I am introducing a time limit of three minutes so that we can get everybody into the debate and leave time for the Front-Bench speeches.