Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Graham Stringer and Ian Swales

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in a debate on Europe. I tend to agree with his analysis of and almost everything he says on Europe, but, fortunately, I do not agree with his analysis of the British economy. It gives me an almost unique pleasure to be able to vote with my own party on a European resolution, which I have not done for some time, and I was surprised and pleased when the Opposition tabled the amendment.

First, it is also not unique for a Minister to come to this Chamber with almost nothing new to say, but it is unusual, to say the least, for the Minister to explain to the House that she has nothing new to say. There is a reason for that. The House is expected to report on the Budget and what we are doing financially to the European Union. In one sense one might take the rise out of that and have a little joke about it, as we are just sending the documents that we have already produced to the European Union and to Brussels, but we must remember that the European Union is a thin-end-of- the-wedge organisation. If it cannot get what it wants immediately, it will concede a little. It will say that as it cannot control our budgets, which it would like to do as it wants to create a much more centralised European Union, we should send it the details of them. Initially, that happened under the guise of looking for convergence since the euro was created just over 10 years ago. For a House that believes and should believe in its sovereignty, there is danger in that process even if nothing is being added to what is being given to the European Union.

My second point is the obverse of the point made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset. We certainly do not want to converge with the European Union, because the euro has been the biggest machine for destroying jobs in Europe since the 1930s. It has been a complete and total disaster. It is not just a matter of our not wanting to converge with the euro and the rest of the European Union. There is still an insistence within the eurozone on convergence and trying to converge is a disaster for the countries inside the zone and for the United Kingdom, because we want to trade with a thriving economy. While the euro is there, that economy cannot thrive. It is as simple as this. In Germany, the euro is simply an undervalued Deutschmark that is helping the German economy to trade around the world. That is hugely successful and Germany is building up huge trade surpluses. The rest of the eurozone, particularly the Mediterranean regions, is dealing with an overvalued euro that is depressing its economies.

Without the ability to change exchange rates, those countries are effectively in a competitive deflationary situation and it is very unlikely that they will ever be able to pay off their deficits and get into a better economic situation. The only way they could do that is if the German surplus was taken and spent in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece, where they have huge unemployment rates and where there is unemployment in what industry is left. It is very difficult—almost impossible—for the eurozone to converge, and that is bad for those countries and, because we want to trade with them, for this economy.

If the eurozone had done better since the banking crisis five or six years ago, this country would not have suffered as much as we have.

[Ian Swales]

I am carefully following the hon. Gentleman’s argument, with which I absolutely agree. I must admit that since I first became a candidate for the Liberal Democrats, the policy on the euro was the one policy on which I disagreed with my party for exactly the reasons that he is outlining. However, to be positive, does he agree that sending these documents to the EU might, in the spirit of learning, make it reconsider the errors of its ways?

[Graham Stringer]

The EU is not only a thin-end-of-the-wedge organisation but absolutely not a learning organisation. It is ideologically committed to ever-greater and closer union. It will not listen to arguments, however sensible they are, and however well this economy has or has not done over the past five or 10 years, and it will not take empirical lessons because its ideology is different from that. I will not repeat my previous points about starting the process of this sovereign Parliament’s reporting to the EU.

Greener Road Transport Fuels

Debate between Graham Stringer and Ian Swales

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Swales]

No, absolutely not. My point was that the high-grade, high-protein animal feed, which the by-product feed replaces, is typically grown in South America, so the by-product feed reduces the demand for soya-based proteins, mostly from South America. There is a green chain. The situation is not as simple as people say.

The Government have had a policy for putting biofuels into both diesel and petrol for years. Starting with diesel, they set the targets and people invested large amounts in chemical plant, but all the early investors went bust because the Government kept moving the goal posts—surprise, surprise, the same has happened with bioethanol. The £300 million that people invested in the plant in my constituency has largely gone and the plant recently changed hands for a lower price. Why? Because the Government have not delivered on the renewable transport fuel obligations they said they would when the investment case was originally made.

The hon. Member for Southport mentioned an important point: we need certainty for green technologies. If we are asking people to invest large amounts of capital, we cannot keep changing our minds. Changing one’s mind leads to an industry heavily dependent on imports of green products. Unless we give investors certainty about the goal posts and the environment into which they invest, they will not invest anymore. Most of the early investors in such technologies have done badly and that is mostly due to Government policy.

For the same reasons, we need to ensure at EU level that targets for the proportions of biofuel in diesel and petrol are separate. If we allow an overall target and let oil companies play games over how much biofuel they put into each one on any given day, the people who have invested heavily in capital plant will have years of feast and years of famine, as the oil companies play their games, and will eventually exit the market. Again, traders will be left to pick up the pieces.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and I have learnt a lot from it. Is not the fundamental point of what he is saying that in asking the Government to pick one technology over another, we are asking them to pick winners? History shows us that the Government are much better at picking losers than winners.

Rather than the Government’s picking winners and choosing where to put subsidies, would it not be better for them to switch some of the subsidies currently going into the energy industry—there is a huge debate about that at the moment—into research, so that we can move on to the next generation of renewable technologies, which the market will support?

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have told many potential investors in the industry that we cannot expect the Government to make winners. As at a roulette table, they will put their chips on lots of different numbers, but having made policy on, for example, the proportion of petrol that should come from bio-sources, they cannot change it when people are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds. By the way, those biofuels do not get a subsidy; all they need is a market that is understood and left to prosper. I agree with his point, but at some stage we must not so much pick winners, as set the environment for particular sectors of the market to thrive.

Biomass Power Generation

Debate between Graham Stringer and Ian Swales

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The trees and forests of this country certainly could not be a sustainable supply, given the level of burn that there would be.

I am reminded a bit of Aneurin Bevan’s comment that we live on an island made out of coal and surrounded by fish, and it would take fools to damage our food or energy supply. I do not know what has happened in the past 30 or 40 years.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting counter-argument. Previous speakers in the debate have cited north America as an example, but he will be aware that the paper and pulp industry has long imported biomass, mainly from Scandinavia. The power project to which I referred in my speech is in detailed talks with the Finnish industry as one of its main suppliers.

[Graham Stringer]

In a stable world economy, crossing the Atlantic or the North sea is not a problem, but a secure energy supply really means being able to do things here, and there is a risk to our energy security from moving from fossil fuels, of which we have hundreds of years’ supply, to biofuels. I just want to make that simple point.

Another point that has not come out much in the debate is the problem of toxicity. I have tabled several parliamentary questions on the matter in the past year or so. According to an answer of 23 May 2012, at column 701W, the burn of biomass in 2010 added to the atmosphere 160 tonnes of chromium, 130 tonnes of arsenic and 16 tonnes of hexavalent chromium, all of which are damaging to health and likely to reduce people’s life expectancy, although the figures are not completely available.

[Graham Stringer]

I know from my hon. Friend’s constituents, who have written to me, that there is great concern about these problems in Stretford and Trafford, so I wanted to bring that to hon. Members’ attention, because it has not yet been discussed.

Finally, I think that the carbon debt is slightly greater than the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty said, partly because some new trees will be used. Interestingly, to hit the European 2020 targets, the carbon must be back in a tree by 2020, so if we are dealing with trees that take 10 or 20 years to grow, biofuels should not count towards the target, because that will not have happened. I think there is a bit of a fiddle going on.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman is repeating one of the great fallacies about the industry, on which I think that the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) touched. Let us say that there is 20-year cropping of a stand of trees, with a 20th taken out and replanted. All the evidence shows that the overall carbon in that stand of trees at the end of the year will be the same, or will even have increased, despite the cropping, because all the other trees will have become bigger. The idea that when one tree is taken out—

[Ian Swales]

Thank you, Mrs Main.

[Graham Stringer]

It is a complicated equation, although I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There is also the question of the carbon that comes out of the earth, however, and the black carbon, which is a product of the combustion and also leads to global warming. It is a very complicated equation, so it is simply wrong to say that the process is carbon-neutral.

Although I have the greatest respect for the case made by the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty, we are dealing with a subsidised industry that would not have been established without two European directives, one of which is counter-productive, while the other is deindustrialising the country. People’s health is being damaged and, in the round, the policy is not a good one.