Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a lot of misinformation about the environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to maintain or enhance standards. He is right that we had very little say over positions taken in Brussels, but now, in the Bill, those decisions are taken by the devolved authorities. That will remain devolved and they will have a say, so why would they want to give away that power?

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?

--- Later in debate ---

What this Bill does is give power to the devolved authorities. They will be able to take retained EU law and do with it as they please. They can keep it, they can revoke it, they can amend it, but they cannot extend it. Why can it not be extended? That is a point that has been raised, and it is one about which people have some concern, because this is technical. This is turning the status quo into domesticated law. If people want to make the political argument for extending laws, they have the ability to do that where it is devolved. They have the power to do it, but it is not this Bill. Likewise, in this Parliament, if we wish to extend the regulations, we have the ability to do so. That brings me to an entirely spurious point that is being made.

[Ian Blackford]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand this point. Of course there is a difference: we wish to be back in the European Union as an independent country, but by dint of this Bill we are going to have to introduce legislation to make sure that we remain aligned with the European Union. We have no desire to do that, because we are already closely aligned. These measures are going to be forced on us, against our will, by this Parliament.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There will be some work for the Scottish Parliament to do to maintain the status quo. That is a policy decision for the Scottish Parliament, resulting from a decision that was taken by the whole United Kingdom. That is how devolution works, and that is a proper and fair working of devolution. That, actually, is what gives the Scottish Parliament the power to do what it wants to do. It flows from our constitutional settlement, and from the overarching decision made by the British people, as one people, to leave the European Union.

I now come to the entirely bogus point about the threat to rights. In his opening speech on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) made it clear, on the Government’s behalf, that the environmental rights would be maintained. The Government have been and are committed to that. But they will maintain them in UK law. We have been able to that before. I believe Henry Brooke was the Home Secretary who introduced the Clean Air Act 1956. The Conservative party has a pretty good record on that. It turns out that the Sale of Goods Act 1893, to which I earlier referred the Minister, was one of the last Acts of Gladstone, so the Liberals should be proud of their history of doing things in a British way rather than needing the European Union to do it. The Conservatives introduced the Holidays with Pay Act 1938—again, the protection of workers’ rights. That is before we go back to Lord Shaftesbury and the Factory Acts. We do not need to go into the mists of time to see that we can do it ourselves.

Finally, I must mention amendment 36. This is the man upon the stair. We all know about the man upon the stair:

“Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. I wish, I wish he’d go away.”

If we do not know what our laws are, how are people supposed to obey them? If the laws are unknown, mystic and possibly imaginary, surely they should not be laws in the first place. They have made the best argument for getting rid of the man upon the stair who was not there in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The great constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey declared:

“The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this...that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever”.

When we joined the EU, despite the promise at the time of Europhilic politicians like Edward Heath that it was an economic community, what happened in practice was that this place paradoxically used the very sovereignty it had inherited from generations before to give up sovereignty and surrender parliamentary authority. The promise of Brexit was a repudiation of such international law making. I know that it discomforts the globalist liberal elite that that promise will and must be delivered, but that is how it is and how it will be. The people’s will must be seen and must be seen to be done, and that is precisely what this Bill is all about.

The journey since 2016 has not been easy. The doubters and deniers—the schemers and plotters—unable to let go of their Euro-federal fantasies, have conjured every trick imaginable to try to stymie Brexit. However, this Government are clear: we will deliver on the promise made in 2016 and restore parliamentary sovereignty to this country. In doing so, we will re-empower the people to whom we are answerable.

I will pick up a couple of points made by Opposition Members. I enjoyed the rhetoric of the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), which was as elegant as ever. I particularly enjoyed his criticism of hyperbole, which was immediately followed by a hyperbolic list of all of the things that are now at risk. Do any Opposition Members really believe that the Government or Government Members want less safety for our workers, dirtier rivers and less protection of the environment? If they do, they cannot have listened to what Members on the Tory Benches have advocated and fought for, in many cases, for years.

It is an absurdity that, six years on from the referendum, we remain shackled to thousands of articles of retained EU law. I accept that whether we keep, amend or discard those articles needs to be a thorough process, but there must be a single means of delivering that process, which is precisely what this Bill is. Some claim that this is a power grab, but this process—this business of secondary legislation; this use of statutory instruments —was how these regulations found form in the first place. It is a well-established practice that Governments through time have used to deal with such matters, and will again.

That detailed practice requires a Bill of the kind that has been drafted. Without such impetus, we risk wallowing in the malaise and self-doubt that can too often infect those tasked with grand undertakings. After six years, the British people deserve a deadline by which they can know for certain that Britons will live exclusively under British law, free from the interference of foreign powers. This Bill delivers the very certainty that those who criticised it have called for today. Such self-confidence is anathema to the hon. Members who still balk at the audacity of the 17 million Britons who believed in Britain enough to vote for Brexit.

To hon. Members who have signed amendment 36, I say that it is, by definition, an attempt to dilute, delay and obfuscate. Such efforts must be resisted. There are those who remain unreconciled to the decision of the British people to leave the EU, but any device to perpetuate our legislative connection to the EU is incompatible with our national interest and the common good. The unamended Bill facilitates the removal of our EU hangover through all the necessary, democratic mechanisms.

The Bill is a decisive and unequivocal declaration of self-confidence in self-governance. At last, we have a Government who display such self-confidence, free of the doubt and guilt that has infected politicians on both sides of the House for far too long. Edmund Burke said that what matters

“is not what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason and justice tell me I ought to do.”

What we ought to do now is deliver what the British people missioned us to do in 2016: to ensure that the laws and regulations that affect their lives are made in this House and that their Government are free to lead that process.

I enjoyed the speech of hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), which was rather like a Russian novel—very long but with good bits—but he must know that there are any number of ways in which Ministers are accountable to the House. For example, they can be questioned orally and in writing, and they can be challenged through Opposition day debates, Standing Order No. 24 debates and urgent questions. Ministers should and will be held to account by both sides of the House in all kinds of formal and informal ways, but we could never hold to account those foreign powers that dictated our laws for far too long.

Now, we escape.

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) described the Bill as a pig in a poke. I think it is a pig in a poke that the Government have put lipstick on. We have heard about taking back control many times this afternoon, so I am at a loss to understand why Government Members would go through the Lobby in support of this Bill. In effect, a whole range of legislation will be wiped out, but they do not know what it is or what authority they are giving to the UK Government. They do not even know whether it will be 3,000, 4,000 or more pieces of legislation. It is extraordinary that a group of people who want to take back control are giving authority to the UK Government to do what they like without any scrutiny in this House—that is exactly the point of the Bill.

We have heard that we should not worry, because we will have statutory instruments and the ability to hold the Government to account, but the last time that the Government were defeated on a statutory instrument was in 1979—my goodness. Those who want to take back control talk about parliamentary sovereignty and the lack of democracy in the European Union, but all that they are doing is giving untrammelled powers to Ministers to do what they like. There is nothing that the Opposition or Government Back Benchers can do to effectively hold the Government to account. What an extraordinary set of circumstances.

SNP Members have always accepted that it is the right of others in other parts of the United Kingdom to determine their future. They want to leave the European Union, but we reject that—of course, we do not want to leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, according to a recent opinion poll, 72% of the public of Scotland want to stay in the European Union. We have a tale of two different Parliaments moving in different directions. It is clear that Scotland is on a journey to independence and we will rejoin the European Union as a member, hopefully soon. To do that, however, we need to remain aligned with the European Union.

This is about democracy. We have referred to the Scotland Act 1998 on many occasions, as we did yesterday in the debate on section 35, and it is worth reflecting on the difference between what happened there and what is happening today. We have a Parliament in Edinburgh that we are proud of. There was a majority in that Parliament for legislation that was passed before Christmas, yet this Government in London can bring in legislation under the Scotland Act that strikes out an Act of the Scottish Parliament and there is nothing we can do about it. In this particular case, the legislation impinges on domestic legislation and devolved legislation in Scotland. The principle was established in the Scotland Act that in order to do that the principle of consent stood—the so-called Sewel convention. That means the devolved Government in Edinburgh, and in Cardiff and in Belfast, have to give consent for matters that affect domestic legislation. Yet we are told to go and stick it—the view of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that this is not in our interest and we do not consent to it.

We saw yesterday that a UK Government can strike down a Bill of a Scottish Parliament. Why does not the Scottish Parliament have the right to say to this Government that they are doing that without our consent? That demonstrates to the people of Scotland that devolution as it works at the moment means Westminster continues to call the shots. Westminster determines what happens in devolved legislation. It is a wake-up call to the people of Scotland in the debate we are having on independence that, if we want to secure the right to determine areas such as the economy, the environment and consumer protection, we cannot rely on the Westminster Government to protect our rights and we cannot stop a UK Government interfering in what are devolved matters. If we want to secure that protection, if we want to secure our rights, if we want to celebrate the joys we had of European membership from 1973 until now, we need to take the final steps.

Look at what has happened in this House this week: there has been the threat to the right to strike, the threat to democracy in Scotland yesterday, and the threat to the values and protections we have built over many years in the European Union. All are being swept away. This is a United Kingdom turning the clock back, moving backwards. We want to move forwards as a member of the European Union. That is why today we will push our amendments and reject this Bill.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

The measures in the Bill are wholly necessary and greatly welcome. The retention of EU law after our departure from the European Union was certainly necessary in order to maintain temporary legal equilibrium and avoid gaps in the UK’s statute book. However, as time has passed, it has become increasingly anomalous for the United Kingdom to have a large body of foreign-derived legislation that is accorded supremacy over our own domestic law.

After almost half a century of EU membership, the United Kingdom has automatically absorbed a vast amount of EU legislation, which was either directly imposed or created by domestic subordinate legislation. Much of that legislation is probably obsolete. It was telling that around 1,400 items of EU law that everyone had apparently forgotten about were recently discovered in the National Archives. It seems self-evident that those pieces of legislation could not possibly have been of much practical utility if everybody had forgotten about them, but despite the fact that those items of law had been forgotten, they continue to have special status in our domestic legal system. Not only do they have supremacy over our domestic legislation, but they are interpreted in accordance with the general principles of EU law, rather than those of our own indigenous systems. They are a kind of EU cuckoo in the nest of the common law and Scots law.

It appears there are in total about 3,800 items of retained EU law, and the Government are entirely right to have decided to review them as quickly as possible and remove or assimilate them as appropriate. Furthermore, the Government are right to set out an ambitious timetable for the completion of that exercise through the sunset provisions of clause 1. Amendment 36 would hamper that process. The sunset provisions of clause 1 are of course intended to encourage and incentivise Government Departments to press on quickly with the exercise of identifying and reviewing individual items of retained EU law that affect them. Those Departments will then make a decision as to whether those items of law should be revoked, pursuant to clause 1, or assimilated into the domestic legal system, pursuant to clause 6. That is an entirely sensible process, which will ensure that those items of retained EU law that are not revoked pursuant to clause 1 become subject to the ordinary processes of the domestic legal system. That will be beneficial to businesses and citizens in that the well-understood principles of common law or Scots law, with their nimbleness and certainty, will apply to assimilated law rather than the unpredictable purposive approach of the EU legal system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

I must make some progress; I am worried about time running out. I must also speak in particular to amendment 36, mostly because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who chairs the European Statutory Instruments Committee, made some fantastic interventions. The amendment states that we need greater transparency on how the process will continue. There are opportunities to be on Committees and to scrutinise legislation, but my hon. Friend made it clear that Labour MPs have not even turned up to take their places on the European Statutory Instruments Committee.

EU law that will be amended or repealed will go through the usual channels. Business managers and the Leaders of both Houses will take decisions. The European Statutory Instruments Committee will be involved, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will be involved in the House of Lords, and we have the dashboard. Nothing could be more transparent, and it will involve colleagues from across the House.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned consumer rights. I want to put on the record that core consumer protections, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987, will continue to apply and remain unaffected. Furthermore, I reiterate my commitment that the dashboard, as I said earlier, will be published this month.

Turning to devolution, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the Bill is consistent with the devolved arrangements and remain committed to respecting the devolution settlement and the Sewel convention. The Bill will allow the devolved authorities to look at devolved law and take a decision on what they wish to assimilate, amend or revoke—decisions that they never had when we were a member of the EU. I would hope that those authorities would embrace that with both hands, not reject it.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Ghani]

I am reluctant to give way, because the intervention will end up being, “But we just don’t want to be here.” If it is on a different topic, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister respect the right of the Scottish Parliament not to give consent to this Bill?

[Ms Ghani]

I find this extraordinary. The devolved authorities have the right to make decisions on devolved laws. Why would that not be embraced, instead of being rejected?

I must comment on the Bar Council’s evidence. Barrister Tom Sharpe KC noted that the Bar Council

“is our trade union, and it does not speak on my behalf on this political matter…obviously”.––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 24, Q43.]

An issue about deregulation was raised. It is not enshrined in any of the clauses, but the Bill says that overall burdens must be reduced.

Tidal Energy Generation: Ringfenced Funding

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to bring this critical issue before the House this evening. I have been passionate about the tidal marine industry’s potential for some time. I am glad that now, only a few weeks after the conference of the parties in Glasgow, it is finally getting the focus and attention that it deserves.

Ahead of this debate, as we all know, the Prime Minister announced at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday that there will finally be some ringfenced funding for tidal energy: £20 million in the forthcoming contracts for difference auction. I wish I had known that securing a debate in this House is all it takes to get some movement out of the Government and the Cabinet. I must really start securing adjournment debates much more often.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It was my PMQ.

[Ian Blackford]

Of course—I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Prime Minister’s question yesterday.

While my party colleagues and I were glad to see some movement yesterday, we have also been very clear that it amounts to only a partial U-turn. The Government have a way to go yet. Every little may help, but if we are serious about the scale of the opportunity, we need to go further.

In securing this debate, our ask was for a £71 million ringfenced fund. The ask remains for £71 million, which we genuinely believe is the level of investment that will allow the industry to fulfil its potential to provide green baseload energy that is so critical to our situation, and will support a sector that has massive potential not just at home but as an export industry. The level of investment that we put in now will ultimately determine whether the industry will reach its potential on these shores or we miss the chance and let it slip through our grasp.

Let me put the issue in context. The Royal Society report published this month refers to tidal marine contributing 11.5 GW of electricity. That is 15% of UK generation capacity.

[Alan Brown]

May I go back to the pots of money? As my right hon. Friend says, £20 million is clearly welcome compared with where we were, but would a bigger pot of money not unlock greater investment and create a better jobs return? A £70 million pot could unlock £140 million of private investment and create 400 jobs, whereas £20 million would unlock only £20 million and create 100 jobs. A bigger pot would get a better return for consumers.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is right. We are, essentially, at ground zero today. This is about how we kick-start the industry. The modest Government support for which we are asking would unlock that private investment, and when we think about the 11.5 GW that I talked about—that 15% of UK electricity—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)

[Ian Blackford]

That 15% is equivalent to the contribution that nuclear makes. When we put into context the relative level of funding we are asking for, the scale of the opportunity is huge. We are talking about an industry in which Scotland and the UK lead the world in terms of technology. The ability to create green baseload electricity is there 24/7, 365 days a year, along with the capacity to use that technology and that ingenuity to export to Canada, Thailand, France, Japan and so on. There is a massive opportunity for us to benefit from that first-mover advantage, to get behind an industry where we can make sure that we control the entire supply chain and have the potential to navigate away from fossil fuels and create the jobs referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

My right hon. Friend has talked of an opportunity. We have known about tidal energy for a long time. We should have invested in it 20, 30 or 40 years ago; if we had done so, we would have a much more mature industry today. If this Government do not invest now, we will look to the future and see nothing more than negligence.

[Ian Blackford]

We are where we are at the moment. My point to the Government is this. We know that the technology is there. We know that relative costs are already coming down dramatically; we can see that from the MeyGen project in the Pentland Firth, for example. Here is the opportunity to get behind something that could be revolutionary, in terms of providing clean energy—baseload energy, as I mentioned—but also the ability to create a manufacturing industry. We can perhaps learn from the mistakes that were made with wind turbines, and ensure that we are not relying on other countries to provide the infrastructure that we need, because we can do this ourselves. There is a responsibility that we have here, now, today, to get behind this industry.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way one more time.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I much appreciate his relatively new-found enthusiasm for the marine energy sector. I pay tribute to his colleagues, the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), for the help that they have given the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, which I founded in July 2016. The group has 25 members, two of whom are from the Scottish National party, and their support is greatly valued. However, this is a great British success story, which has an impact on opportunities from the Isle of Wight, along the coast of Cornwall, up through Wales and into Northern Ireland.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, this wonderful decision by the Government has been greeted by the chair of RenewableUK as a

“major step forward for the…tidal energy industry.”

The chair of the Marine Energy Council has said:

“The impact of this support cannot be overstated.”

Furthermore, Nova Innovation has said that this will be

“turbocharging the delivery of tidal energy”.

This is a pivotal moment, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a huge leap forward for marine energy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is not customary to read out very long interventions.

[Ian Blackford]

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that my support for this is not just for the short term; I was at the port of Nigg when the MeyGen project was launched many years ago, so the subject has been dear to my heart for a long time. I do, however, agree with him about the scale of the opportunity. Of course the £20 million of investment that was announced yesterday is important, because it will allow us to develop the industry, but the question at the heart of today’s debate is about the scale of our ambition.

I respectfully ask the Minister, as I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for a recognition of the scale of this opportunity. Phase 2 of the MeyGen project has already been permitted to go up to 80 MW, and in the Pentland Firth it could ultimately reach as much as 400 MW, but the ability to expand from the current 6 MW installed in MeyGen phase 1 is restrained by the investment that has been put in place in this round. We would certainly not be looking at deploying the 80 MW; it would be a much reduced figure. I would simply say to the Minister and to all Members: let us have that ambition. Let us have that desire to see this green energy source get to 15% of UK electricity production. To do that, however, we have to show more ambition than is being shown today. I do not wish to be seen as ungrateful for what has happened; all I am asking the Government to do is to recognise the scale—

[Alan Brown]

Will my right hon. Friend give way one more time?

[Ian Blackford]

Let me make a little bit of progress. At this rate, I am going to use up all the time myself, but I want to be respectful to the Minister.

My message to the Minister is to reassess what has been done and to do all that he can to ensure that we develop this green potential. The funding of £71 million that we have asked for would have resulted in 100 MW of capacity deployed in the very near term from what we know from planned projects. Let me ask him this specific question. With a funding pot of £20 million, what specific assessment of capacity deployment have the Government made? I genuinely ask him not to duck this question, as it is critical to revealing what assumptions the Government have made in relation to their lower level of investment. I am sure that they will not have made this announcement without making such an assessment, and I look forward to the Minister addressing that question when he responds.

It is important to set out just how obvious an opportunity investment in the tidal marine sector is, and why it is important for us. First and foremost, we should remind ourselves of how deeply fortunate we are that this world-leading technology is already located in the United Kingdom and particularly in Scotland. We have a chance to grow this sector exponentially, but we have to take it. It is estimated that the tidal stream industry could generate a net cumulative benefit to the UK of £1.4 billion and support at least 4,000 jobs by 2030. Additionally, although wave energy is a less mature technology than tidal stream, it could add a further net positive contribution to the UK economy of £4 billion and support 8,100 jobs by 2040.

This industry is not alone as an emerging opportunity; there is also emerging evidence of just how big this opportunity can be for our present and future energy needs. A recent report for the Royal Society, led by Daniel Coles at the University of Plymouth in collaboration with the Universities of Aberdeen, St Andrews and Highlands and Islands, has found that the UK can get 15% of its electricity production from tidal stream power. That would be a massive contribution to the work that needs to be done to get to net zero by 2045 in Scotland and by 2050 in the rest of the UK. Achieving this would require around 11.5 GW of tidal stream turbine capacity to be installed.

Just to put that in context, we currently stand at 18 MW. This takes us to the nub of the issue regarding the support required from the Government to create the investment in the industry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned. To meet those ambitions means installing a least a further 124 MW by 2031. That would put tidal stream on a trajectory to install the estimated 11.5 GW needed to generate 34 terawatt-hours a year by 2050.

The recent research for the Royal Society also indicates that if we build up this targeted support for the tidal industry, it will drive down the levelised cost of energy to below £150 per megawatt-hour. This would make tidal stream cost-competitive with other technologies such as combined cycle gas turbines, biomass and anaerobic digestion. So, from the current position where there is no route to the domestic market, it is now clear that if this sector gets the investment it needs, it will quickly become a key component in meeting our energy needs.

[Alan Brown]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that another thing the Government could do that would not cost them or consumers any money would be to set an interim date and target for hitting 1 GW of tidal stream? That would send a signal to investors about how seriously the Government are taking this.

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely, because it is about that ambition. I hope the Government share our ambition to see this sector generate the level of electricity we believe it can generate. It is about creating the circumstances, by kickstarting the sector with modest Government investment, so that investors come in. We have developed an opportunity for green energy, but let us also think about the opportunities for manufacturing and for a global success story, given the technology that has been developed on these islands.

A proper level of investment will allow existing developments such as the MeyGen project to take off. This project, the world’s largest tidal array, is already exporting significant amounts of electricity, and it has significant capacity to grow. This presents a transformational opportunity for the tidal sector and would once again demonstrate Scotland’s commitment to a green recovery. It could also create thousands of new full-time roles in the Scottish supply chain, helping to achieve its full potential.

We also need to think about the opportunity for our industrial base in Scotland, because the ability to tie in green energy to the powering of data centres, for example, would be an enormous opportunity throughout Scotland, particularly in my area of the highlands and islands. From this ability to generate green energy, we can develop a wider industrial strategy to create the job opportunities and the wealth that we all want to see.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned supply chains, and 25% of Nova’s supply chain spend is in Shetland, with 98% of its spend being in the UK. If the UK Government are serious about levelling up manufacturing, is this not a golden opportunity for them to get behind it fully, instead of the partial funding we have seen in the last 24 hours?

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Actually, 90% of the Nova project’s supply chain comes from the UK, but let me put that into context. For a traditional wind turbine, the UK contribution is some 30%. We lost the opportunity to command the supply chain for the traditional wind industry, and here is an opportunity to make sure we do not make the same mistake again. It is important the Government recognise that.

We have an opportunity to have a green future driven by green jobs, but it will happen only if the opportunity is matched by the ambition of Government investment. In truth, the ask from the industry is modest compared with the support offered to other sectors. The ask is for a £71 million ringfenced fund from the UK Government so the sector can flourish. Although the Government’s offer of £20 million in yesterday’s contracts for difference auction is a step in the right direction, it is not the full stride that the sector deserves.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has repeatedly stated on the Floor of the House, £71 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the billions that have been offered to the nuclear industry. There was seemingly no problem in finding £1.7 billion to further develop and design the Sizewell nuclear power station. There can be no reason, no logic and no excuse for failing to find the £71 million needed to support this vital industry.

Let us remind ourselves of the potential. This is an industry that can grow to 15% of the UK’s electricity production. If we look at a typical day over the last few weeks, on 16 November nuclear contributed 14.6% of the UK’s electricity. We do not need nuclear in Scotland. We can provide the baseload we need from this clean source of energy. We have the potential to deliver safe green energy and to provide jobs and energy security for a fraction of the cost of nuclear.

There are many other favourable comparisons, too. The predictability and stable power output of tidal stream energy offers additional benefits over other technologies for our future energy supply. For instance, this predictability and stability even compares positively with floating offshore wind, which secured a £24 million ringfenced budget in the draft budget for the fourth-round allocation.

The ask is modest and the picture for investment is clear. If we do not grasp this opportunity, other countries will. Countries including Canada and France have already put in place financial mechanisms to capitalise on tidal energy. Canada has a feed-in tariff equivalent to £300 per megawatt-hour, with many multi-megawatt projects in the pipeline. Nova, based in Leith, has an order to ship 15 turbines to Canada. The Canadians would love to have our technology, and they are enticing companies such as Nova to relocate. The French Government are about to announce a feed-in tariff for tidal energy backed by the EU green deal. Japan and Indonesia are piloting projects and negotiating power purchasing agreements to accelerate tidal energy deployment. We need a domestic market for the industry to grow and thrive. It is a case of use it or lose it. It is that stark, it is that simple. The grim reality is that if the UK Government fall short and short-change this sector, the industry could be lost to other countries that are willing to invest in this technology. We are back to where we were with wind and, in many cases, where we were on oil and gas. We must make sure that we do not lose the full extent of this opportunity. We must make sure that tidal stream cannot be lost to Scotland and the UK—it will certainly not be lost to the world, and we need to make sure that we fully play our part .In case that all sounds familiar, we should remember exactly what happened to the wind industry in the 1980s and 1990s. As I have mentioned, only 30% of the UK supply chain for UK wind is domestically generated.

If we are to reach net-zero and have a just transition, we simply cannot repeat those mistakes of the past. Let us just think of the job opportunities through developing the Scottish, UK and global markets. There are expectations of a global market of 100 GW, an industry that will be worth £126 billion by 2050. We have a choice: lead this emerging green energy sector or sit back and watch our sector-leading companies move wholesale to overseas markets. We can embrace the opportunity for green jobs, for base-load energy and for transitioning to that green energy future. We can lead the world in tidal marine or we can walk away from the opportunity to develop and deepen the sector leadership that has been developed in Scotland and the UK.

It will come as no surprise to Members from across this House that I am not the biggest cheerleader or supporter of the UK Government. Normally when I walk into this Chamber, I do so to firmly oppose those on the Government Benches. Today, though, I walked into this Chamber with a different intention, because this is an issue where we have a chance to work together; here is an area, an industry and an opportunity where we can genuinely work together in our common interests. With a modest amount of support in terms of the overall intervention in energy—of £71 million—the industry can reach its potential and we can all benefit. I hope the Government see it that way too, and I hope that yesterday was only the first step and that there are bigger and better strides to come. I hope the Government are listening, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I gladly accept my hon. Friend’s invitation to meet. He does a brilliant job as the chair of that APPG and he does an amazing job as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Indonesia. He mentioned one or two of the warm words of congratulation on the announcement yesterday. RenewableUK said it was “a major step forward” and that it

“puts us in pole position to”—

lead—

“the global market in due course.”

RenewableUK also said it would

“unlock private investment and secure green jobs”,

while Neil Kermode of the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney said:

“This support for the marine energy industry is absolutely pivotal”.

I appreciate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber having brought this topic to the House. He perhaps might have left one with the impression that just he had made representations to the Prime Minister, but I checked back and found representations from my right hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), for Moray (Douglas Ross), for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell).

I heard some doubt from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber as to whether the £20 million per annum is a substantial-enough sum to put the tidal stream sector on its best footing. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that £71 million is the minimum required for the job. I am afraid I cannot agree with him on that, because £71 million would mean the awarding of a contract to virtually every developer who shows interest in the auction as long as they bid at a level just a single penny under our stated maximum price. He and I worked together in the City of London in our time. He will know from his knowledge of financial markets—I know that he has since rebranded himself as the simple crofter—that there is no way to run an auction of that sort in that way.

[Ian Blackford]

I hope that we can dispense with the silly gibes.

What I explained to the Minister was that £71 million would justify 100 MW of output. Perhaps he can explain what he expects to see from the £20 million. Crucially, I did point out that MeyGen has consent for 80 MW and that, within the envelope of that £71 million, it could have been fully exploited and ultimately ramped up to 400 MW. As things stand, MeyGen 2 cannot be fully exploited and that is the impact of not going to the £71 million.

[Greg Hands]

The right hon. Gentleman is mixing up funding with the process of an auction. It is a contract for difference auction. The idea of £20 million being available is that it allows us to have a competitive process between all of the different parties that may be interested, and then to make sure that at least £20 million goes towards these projects. It is not the same as granting funding, which is what I think he is looking for, of £71 million. It is a competitive auction process. The purpose of the CFD scheme is to support and push for—

UK Internal Market: White Paper

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is precisely what I want to do. This is a consultation; we are consulting and we want to get people’s views. My door is very much open to having a dialogue and discussion with anyone who wants to come forward.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.

What we have seen put forward by the Tory Government is the biggest assault on devolution since the Scottish Parliament reconvened in 1999. It is clear that the Government either do not get Scotland or cannot even be bothered to get it, so let me remind those on the Government Benches that in 1997 more than 75% of Scots voted to establish the Scottish Parliament. The Tories at the time were hostile to the establishment of that Scottish Parliament; they were out of step with Scotland. Plus ça change. Today, the Tories want to strip our Scottish Parliament of its powers.

Let us myth-bust some of the lies that have been circulated this morning. Scotland is not getting 70 new powers. The UK Government say that new powers are coming on animal welfare, energy efficiency and land use; has the Secretary of State not heard? The Scottish Parliament already has those powers: just last month the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill on animal welfare; last year, the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill on forestry; and energy efficiency was part of the Climate Change (Scotland Bill) in 2009, more than a decade ago. We have these powers.

The Secretary of State’s proposal will impose what is being called a mutual recognition regime. The only recognition here is that it is a plan for a race to the bottom on standards. It will mean a reduction in standards in one part of the UK driving down standards elsewhere, even if that is in direct contradiction of the devolved Administrations and their rights and powers.

We all know how desperate this Tory Government are to sell out food standards in return for a US trade deal. There we have it: no new powers and a plan to destroy Scotland’s world-class food and drink standards—not a Parliament in Edinburgh of equals, but one where we legislate only with the approval of Westminster. I have to say to the Secretary of State: this is not a good look. Will he guarantee to the House that these plans will not be imposed on Scotland and that he and his Government will respect, as the Prime Minister often says, the Scottish Parliament’s decisions on them as an equal?

[Alok Sharma]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about understanding Scotland; the one thing that is clear from the statements he has just made is that he certainly does not understand business in Scotland and he certainly does not understand the people of Scotland on this issue. The UK internal market—[Interruption.] The UK internal market is about—[Interruption.]