Points of Order

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I note that. Without any pejorative reference to any other right hon. or hon. Member, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he is veritably a sea-green incorruptible. The idea that the right hon. Gentleman would vote for any reason other than his personal conviction is, to me, unimaginable, and that is quite a striking statement from the Chair because my imagination is quite vivid. However, it is unimaginable that the right hon. Gentleman would do other than vote in accordance with his conviction. Indeed, I think he would be rather offended by the suggestion that somebody would try to procure his vote by what he might regard as an improper influence. I think we will leave the matter there for now. I saw somebody else brow-furrowed, but not rising.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In business questions on Thursday, I likened my local town to Aleppo. The Official Report unfortunately described it as “a leper”, which, as you can imagine, is somewhat different from the message I was trying to get across. Although it was probably righter than me, may I ask your guidance? I am happy for the record to stand, but it was not in fact what I actually said.

[Mr Speaker]

It could be quite difficult now for the hon. Gentleman to correct the record, although if he wanted to consult the Table Office about a written question he might put down, he could probably find his own salvation. For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, was referring to a place, the title of which begins with an A and, because it is a place name, with a capital A; he was not referring to someone suffering from a very serious and regrettable disease. I hope that that is helpful to him, in so far as he is communicating with the “Bridgwater Bugle” or some other organ of note in his constituency. I am sure he will want to ensure that the facts are known, and I have the impression from his grinning countenance that he is satisfied with that reply.

Easter Adjournment

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

The House may not be surprised by the subject about which I will be speaking. I will be speaking about it because the Government have just announced that two councils are to be merged, and I will be speaking on behalf of my constituents.

I was very pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) about the festival of the north. I have a slight vested interest in Newcastle, and I think that it is fantastic news. I urge colleagues to go to Newcastle, which is a very beautiful city—partly because we built it.

I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate, although what I have to say will not please everyone. I want to tell the House about a town hall in Somerset that is being spoon-fed huge sums of public money and, I am afraid, wasting every penny. The name of the waster is Taunton Deane Borough Council—unfortunately, because it has just been announced that it will be amalgamated with my local council, West Somerset. It had ambitions to take over the council, and last week the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government gave it the thumbs up.

Most people shook their heads in disbelief and shock, including the locals in Taunton Deane, as they read the latest letters in the local paper. The Taunton Deane councillors plan to change the council’s name, sack more than a third of the workforce, spend millions of pounds that, unfortunately, we do not have on computers that do not seem to work, make themselves comfy in new offices on which they are spending £11 million although they are worth £5 million, and then come begging to Whitehall when it all goes wrong. Even the unions, which have been instrumental in providing information, agree with that.

In these dark corners of local government, incompetence rules, and we often find greed as well, not to mention sharp practice in many cases—not just in my area—and occasionally, I am afraid, corruption. Taunton Deane Borough Council has been making a dodgy name for itself for many years, long before my time, and has been rattling its tin in Whitehall for ages. The Government recently handed it £7 million to pay for a new road, which runs along the edge of my boundary. It never occurred to anyone that you cannot sanction a brand-new housing estate unless you build a brand-new road first.

What Taunton Deane is very good at is dishing out planning permission to builders. It is a tiny council, but, believe it or not, it wants to build 17,000 new houses. The effects of that on the roads and the infrastructure will be devastating for my constituents. A great many of those houses will be erected by people—dare I call them mates?—in the local area. The hon. Member for Gateshead will recall the days of Poulson and others. The council leader, believe it not, is a builder. Mates’ rates matter big time in Taunton, and these mates all work around Taunton.

What gets my goat is that, while laying concrete on its green fields, the council has the bare-faced cheek to pretend that it has an environmentally friendly master plan. The Government have rewarded it with a few hundred thousand pounds, which, admittedly, is not a lot in the scheme of things, but it is pretending that a few more badly planned housing estates will add up to a shiny garden town. The idea of garden towns is to build something new, and to aspire, but that does not apply in this case. Taunton Deane specialises in dreams in my area, which is a bit worrying, especially with Glastonbury down the road. Its latest lunacies include borrowing millions of pounds to tart up its headquarters, and trying to buy a hotel. Why a local council should want to buy a hotel is slightly beyond me.

The council’s leadership is rather like Arthur Daley, in a three-wheeled Reliant, flogging “cut and shut” Cortinas to unsuspecting civil servants. They will probably all end up in the canal. What saddens me is that the Government so often cave in too quickly and pay up. I would say the same about Governments on either side of the House. We must stand up against petty bureaucracies. Underfunding may be a problem, but overfunding is a downright scandal.

The future of West Somerset council, in my constituency, is being dictated by a group of people who have no interest in it whatever. It has 28 councillors, and the number will go down to roughly 15, perhaps 14. Taunton Deane has demanded red lines. It has no code of conduct, and no precept for any of its parishes. There is no town council in a town that contains about 100,000 people. The whole thing is run by someone who has a pointed beard and looks like Arthur Daley.

The point I am making is that this is not the way to conduct local government. My area is the sparsest part of England, because we have Exmoor and the Quantocks, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. We cannot build on the coastline. We have enormous flood plains, which, as many of my colleagues will remember, have been affected rather devastatingly. Our room for manoeuvre is very tight. We have one secondary—we do not need any more, to be fair—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Martin Whitfield.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I am not even going to try to follow that one, Mr Speaker.

I have just received a report from Data Diligence, which my right hon. Friend will know about, because it pointed out the wrongdoings of Northamptonshire County Council. It has just sent me a report to prove that Taunton Deane Borough Council has been hiding money for years, in financial misprudence. May we please have a debate on this matter? It is important, as it shows that local government is sometimes not worthy of the trust we put in it.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has referred on this occasion to the council. May I just ask him whether he has notified the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) of his intention to raise this matter today?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I wrote to my hon. Friend, in line with your guidance in your letter. I thank you very much for your guidance, which I followed to the letter.

[Mr Speaker]

This is becoming rather tiresome. I did try gently to exhort the hon. Gentleman to pursue other lines of inquiry. I have permitted this today, but my patience is not unlimited.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I want to bring something that affects my constituency to the attention of the Leader of the House. In Taunton Deane, about which we have just heard, the borough council has borrowed a fortune to do up its headquarters. Not only has it not signed a contract, which I think is illegal and pretty silly, but the headquarters will be valued at only half of what was borrowed. It is not a good council, so may we please have a debate on borough councils in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Did the hon. Gentleman consult his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) in advance of asking this question? If he did, so be it, but if he did not, it is rather unseemly.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I did, Mr Speaker. I sent an email.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes. I am not sure that that is very collegiate, but I will have to leave Members on the same side of the House to try to sort out such matters. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who is quite an experienced Member of the House, that there is a genuine unseemliness about continued references to another Member’s constituency. In the politest possible way, I exhort the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure has a fertile mind and wide range of potential political interests, to focus perhaps on other interests, rather than on those that might affect his constituency—I do not dispute that and do not have authoritative knowledge of the matter—but which most certainly affect that of his hon. Friend.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. At approximately 11.40 am we will need to move on to the next business, so may I very gently say to colleagues that although I understand the desire to give some context and preamble before asking a question, Members who now proceed with what is probably a scripted and rather long question will be doing so knowing that they are stopping colleagues taking part? So may I appeal to colleagues to help each other?

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

We need a debate on Carillion. We have had a disaster in Taunton, just outside my constituency, where the roadworks went over time and over budget. It was a shambles. It is time to have a debate now, please.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I was hoping Sir Desmond was going to help out, because he is always a master of brevity—[Laughter.] His questions do not take much time, anyway. They are always very brief. I call Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

Following your guidance, Mr Speaker, I have a simple question. We are going to build more houses in this country, which is welcome. A local estate agent, Greenslade Taylor Hunt, has been caught price fixing. May we have a debate on stopping estate agents from abusing their position when we want to build more houses for young people?

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I am one of the offenders to whom you referred, Mr Speaker, as I said last time when I threw myself at your mercy. I am grateful that you gave us another telling off, but I was on time—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had been late. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is chuntering from a sedentary position to no obvious benefit or purpose, for the simple reason that I have not the foggiest idea from this distance what he is chuntering about. I am sure that he has a good point; in subsequent years, no doubt, he will tell me what it is. Meanwhile, he can sit quietly and await his fate while we hear from the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger).

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I will not chunter.

The Leader of the House is fully aware that we are trying to get Hinkley Point C built as soon as possible. One problem is the A358, which is now subject to yet another consultation. Taunton Deane Borough Council has blatantly lied that the road go-ahead has been given. That is not true. Could we please have a debate on the issue, as the Hinkley C project is of massive international and national importance?

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was a wonderfully diplomatic reply, and I genuinely thank the Leader of the House for that.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I was one of those who was slightly late, and I apologise—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Too much information, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) observes. If the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) was late, I am grateful to him for his belated apology, but what he should not do is apologise and then just assume that he can take part. We will hear him another time; he can wait till next week. We are grateful to him.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is quite important to be clear to whom the Minister is giving way. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) was perfectly convinced that it was he that she had in mind, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) looks similarly confident that it was he. Take us out of our misery, Minister.

[Margot James]

I apologise for the confusion. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger).

BBC

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to intervene on this statement, although it is very likely that he will wish to intervene on the next.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. I am grateful.

Satellite Navigation (Updating Scheme)

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme under which UK-based providers of mobile satellite navigation services must offer their customers incentives to provide real-time updates on route suitability and traffic management measures; and for connected purposes.

I am grateful for the chance to introduce the Bill and I hope that hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber will not rely on sat-nav to get to the Tea Room—if they can find it at the moment. If they do, some of them will probably end up floating in the Thames. I admire the wizardry of sat-nav, but I am painfully aware that it does not always work.

The purpose of my Bill is simple: to prevent heavy lorries from getting stuck under low bridges, on roads far too narrow for their trailers, up perilous mountains or across boggy fields, and from driving headlong, in one or two cases, into rivers. Satellite navigation is supposed to take the worry out of motoring, but tell that to a party of schoolchildren who recently got stuck on a coach bound for Henry VIII’s palace that was led to Islington instead. I realise that Islington might become of importance next week as an international shrine for the Labour party, but that makes no difference to the fact that Henry VIII would not have been seen dead in the place. As for the poor children, it was a bit of a disappointing day.

That is just one example of what sat-nav does, and there are far too many more. Another coach party, this time made up of pensioners, was on its way for a jolly day trip to the village of Stroat in Gloucestershire when the driver, who was slavishly following the sat-nav, got stuck. The pensioners walked—or in some cases limped—through several ploughed fields to make it to their destination. Meanwhile, in Hampton Loade, Shropshire, sat-nav has been sending drivers straight into the River Severn. Naturally, the council put signs up; naturally, the drivers ignored them. The same damp ending has happened in Wiltshire, Norfolk and, believe it or not, Leicestershire. A cheery voice confidently tells drivers to go straight on, and then, suddenly—splash! It is somewhat embarrassing.

One might think that something is wrong with the mapping, but often something is wrong with the language. We have the ability to ask locals for directions if we are ever stupid enough to get lost, but if someone’s mother tongue is Lithuanian and their sat-nav goes wonky they probably will not understand a word people say in Charlcombe near Bath. A driver from Vilnius was trapped in his truck for four days until rescuers pulled him clear.

A Czech lorry driver had similar problems in Ivybridge in Devon. His lorry was wedged down a narrow lane for three days, with him stuck inside. The whole of Bruton high street in Somerset was shut for 24 hours after another foreign vehicle misjudged its width, having been urged on by the soothing voice of his navigational aid. The worst example I have found was from Wadebridge in Cornwall, where a Belgian truck driver was directed by his sat-nav into an unsuitable cul-de-sac, tried to reverse out and, quite impressively, demolished a roundabout and six parked cars. So much for European unity.

I would like to explain some of the intricacies of this very clever technology. Sat-navs obviously work from outer space. The global positioning system can provide location, altitude and speed with great accuracy—when it works. Microwave radio signals travelling at the speed of light from at least three different satellites are used by the dashboard receiver to calculate precisely where the vehicle is and how fast it is going. However, only a tiny difference is needed between the clock in the receiver and the time by which the satellites are working to make the measurements go haywire. GPS has a built-in margin of error that can get even wider when travelling in rugged terrain, such as west Somerset. There is only one solution: if all sat-navs were fitted with atomic clocks, we could absolutely rely on them. Unfortunately, atomic clocks retail at about £100,000 each, which I am afraid would put TomTom, Dick and Harry well outside the bracket.

That is why we have to put up with dumb directions from the little box all too often. That is why a party of football fans on a coach from the continent ended up in Yorkshire, rather than Wales. They had typed only one word into their sat-nav: “Wales”. Just outside Sheffield there is a village called Wales, and a very nice place it is too, unless one is expecting to watch a football match 200 miles away at Cardiff Arms Park. An ambulance in Essex that was meant to be transferring a patient 12 miles down the road unfortunately listened to the sat-nav and—believe it or not—ended up in Manchester. In my constituency, particularly on the winding and congested roads of west Somerset, heavy lorries rely on sat-nav, to the exclusion of common sense and always at our expense. They cause frustration and delay and often have to be rescued and towed out, which costs time and money. But the drivers and the companies who employ them always blame sat-nav when their vehicles end up in the wrong place. In my view that is a total cop-out that must be tackled by law.

In the old days we carried maps and—dare I say it?—used our intelligence; we stopped the car, wound down the window and asked somebody where we were. Today, far too many drivers blithely assume that it is all the fault of a box of electronic tricks when they end up lost. Some drivers prefer to obey the voice of their sat-nav, rather than the solid instructions of clear signs screwed to posts by county and district councils. It does not get much clearer than a sign that reads, “This Road is Narrow—No Heavy Lorries”, yet certain gormless truck drivers still choose to follow the voice in the box and ignore the obvious hazards. They might as well drive blindfolded.

It is high time that the law was changed to make the buck stop where it should: with haulage firms that order their drivers to stick to the sat-nav, or with the drivers themselves. The Bill aims to remove motoring’s lamest excuses and put the blame where it belongs. I commend it to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone on manoeuvres a little prematurely. He has further information and better particulars to vouchsafe to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that repetition of points in the Chamber is not an entirely novel phenomenon.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

We have already had a question about broadband, but I wonder whether I may ask the Leader of the House about it too. We had an announcement last week about broadband throughout the UK and the extra money that is being made available. This issue affects every constituency, throughout the UK. Because we still have anomalies in cities, towns and rural areas, may we have time in this Chamber to allow Members to discuss the problems in their constituencies relating to the roll-out of broadband throughout the UK?

Community Funding (Infrastructure Projects)

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad that you did not name me.

Today’s fashionable fuel is wind power, although far too much windy rhetoric is spoken about its extremely doubtful benefits. Happily, no developer can get away with bunging up a wind farm without contributing a generous wad of notes to the local community in return. Purists may argue that wind power is entirely carbon-neutral, and that it therefore deserves to be on the list for community benefits.

Nuclear power is seen as a different kettle of fish. I do not accept that argument. Nuclear power does not burn fossil fuel, so it, too, is carbon friendly. Nuclear generators and wind farms both come with legacies. It is dealing with those legacies that community benefits should be about.

I will take Drigg in Copeland as an example. It is a small community on the north-west coast, not far from Sellafield. When the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority wanted to build a containment plant for low-level nuclear waste, it chose Drigg. It also helped to establish a community fund that has benefited the people of Drigg by several million pounds and will continue to do so for many years. What I am getting at is that the principle of large developers dipping deep into their pockets to help the local community has been established for a long time, including for nuclear schemes.

Some might say there is already a mechanism in place that guarantees such help: section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That provision affects all our constituencies. Do not get me wrong—my constituency is very grateful for section 106. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), in whose seat Sizewell sits, feels exactly the same. I am grateful for her support. Section 106 ensures that developers contribute to easing the disruption that their developments cause, but it was never meant to cover anything else. Sedgemoor district council, West Somerset council and Somerset county council have worked successfully with EDF to hammer out a section 106 deal, which was struck just over a week ago. It will involve EDF spending £94 million to help pay for road alterations, housing the work force, training and many other things.

Section 106 was never designed to deal with the long-term legacy. Section 106 agreements must be directly related to the development, and are limited and inflexible. They are capable of addressing only a narrow range of projects. In truth, the entire planning system cannot address the scale, scope and nature of the burden that will be borne by local communities as a result of hosting new nuclear developments. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his colleagues understand that. I believe that they do.

The national infrastructure plan made it crystal clear that a lot more could and should be done in the way of community benefits for new nuclear power proposals. It was published as long ago as November 2011 and promised that the Government would bring forward proposals for nuclear community benefits by 2012. At the start of the year, the Minister’s predecessor said that the Department recognised that nuclear developments had special features that justified going further than section 106 agreements. Nine months later, we are not much the wiser.

It is no secret that a great deal of discussion has been taking place between different Departments, including the Treasury, on how such legacy benefits might be developed, and that is welcome. All the right noises are being made by most of the right people, but we humble souls at the coal face—or in this case the nuclear face—cannot decipher what the muffled sounds mean. This has been going on for the best part of a year and we keep being told to wait for a definitive statement. We are famously patient souls in Somerset, as you well know, Mr Speaker, but I have to tell the Minister that we are beginning to get a bit twitchy, and a little confused, because of how fast the project is moving. The confusion comes because we remain unclear about the Government’s attitude to using a proportion of Hinkley’s business rates to kick-start local community benefit funds. It is obvious that Ministers have different views, but they are also not saying the same things.

The Department for Communities and Local Government wants to let local authorities hang on to some of the business rates because, quite rightly, that demonstrates “localism”—a good coalition buzzword. Theoretically, councils should be able to use business rates to attract enterprise to their area, and if a proportion of those rates goes straight to the council rather than to the Treasury, that is seen as a device to let local governments stand on their own financial feet, which as my hon. Friend the Minister will accept, would save the Treasury a lot of money.

Some of those ideas are enshrined in the Local Government Finance Bill, which is now grinding its way through the parliamentary process. There are limitations, however, of which the most annoying is that if a wind farm receives clearance to put up turbines, the council can retain a chunk of the business rates because wind is supposed to be renewable. Strictly speaking, however, nuclear power is not renewable. It may be essential to produce energy when renewable windmills fail to renew—as I am afraid they frequently do—but we still cannot get at those business rates.

When Hinkley is ready for operation, the rateable value of what it does is likely to be around £10 million a year. Under the current system, that money will go straight to the Treasury, which I believe is unfair on Bridgwater and West Somerset and Somerset councils and their residents. We will have to learn to live with Hinkley, as will our children and grandchildren, and I think we deserve a bit more. At present, however, the rules say that because the energy is not renewable, we do not qualify for business rates. That is not joined-up thinking, and much still needs to do be done.

Even if the Minister announced tonight that a national infrastructure project such as Hinkley should allow local councils to retain a slice of the business rates, there would still be another mess to sort out. The official, “preferred allocation of business rates” appears to have been calculated by someone whom I suspect is locked in one of those Whitehall offices we hear so much about—someone who has never been near Hinkley and has no idea about the local geography of the area I represent.

The formula for allocating business rates is based on where the project is. Hinkley Point is on the coast just inside the boundary of West Somerset district council. Let me, therefore, say a little about West Somerset council. The area is delightfully rural—it is Exmoor; it is beautiful—but much is in the middle of nowhere. The roads are tricky, the population sparse, and the council finds it difficult to make ends meet because of the settlement received from the Government. Everybody knows that the only way to get heavy traffic—or any traffic—in and out of Hinkley is via Bridgwater and the M5. Therefore, although West Somerset district council will suffer some disruption, most will be borne by Sedgemoor district council and Somerset county council.

It does not need a genius to work that out, but when the rules were devised, there seems to have been a shortage of thinking. Thanks to the way the rules are drafted, West Somerset council will qualify for all the cash, and Sedgemoor and Somerset county council will not receive any in mitigation. That is a muddle and I know it is not what was intended. I am sure that the Minister will agree—at least, I hope he will.

Sedgemoor council, Somerset county council and EDF believe that business rates should be split in proper recognition of the effect of the project on all communities in the area. First, however, we need an intelligent rethink about which projects should qualify. The Department for Communities and Local Government conducted a consultation exercise before the rules were established, and spelled out the terms of reference for energy projects. That was meant to prove that only wind power schemes would qualify for business rates, but in fact those terms of reference put nuclear power on top. I will quickly demonstrate that, if I may, by going through the Department’s checklist: creating a diverse energy mix—yes, Hinkley ticks that box; decarbonising our economy—we tick that box; creating energy security—we tick that box; protecting consumers from fossil fuel price fluctuations—we definitely tick that; driving investment and jobs—we tick it again; meeting carbon emissions reductions—yes, we’ve done it; incentivising development for growth—that is seven out of seven. We tick all the boxes.

No wind farm could ever tick all those boxes, no matter how big or how good, and Ministers need to think about that issue. I am puzzled because I know that the Minister, and his predecessor, know that to be the case, and I am grateful for their support.

I confess that I am a little worried about the mixed messages that have been sent. In July, Sedgemoor council received an encouraging letter about business rates from the Minister for Government Policy. It is worth quoting just one sentence of it:

“The design of the business rates retention scheme will ensure that there will be significant outgoing benefits to those authorities hosting low carbon energy infrastructure—not just renewable energy projects.”

At face value that was what we wanted to hear, but barely a month later a Minister in another Department contradicted him.

The clock is ticking. We need decisions, because as the Minister knows, the infrastructure project is in place. I suggest to him that if the business rates are £10 million, we would like about £4 million to be retained in the local community. I realise that would probably cause trouble in the Treasury, but I invite him to come down to Hinkley to meet the local community. He was very helpful in his previous job in the case of Bridgwater college, and I am grateful to him for that. We would welcome him down there and show him exactly what we do. I do not think it is necessary to get another Bill through the House, but we do need meaningful dialogue to ensure that the project works.

Business of the House

Debate between Ian Liddell-Grainger and John Bercow

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but there is a statement to follow and then Backbench Business Committee business, so there is a premium on brevity from Back Bench and Front Bench alike.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is aware—I have banged on about this enough times—of problems with flooding in my constituency, but we now have a new precedent. The Environment Agency has decided to spend £28 million flooding farmland in order to tick a box for Europe. It is nothing to do with this country; it comes from a European directive. There is now an entire village of people worried that they will be cut off and will have to be removed if the plan fails. This is not the first such case, but things are now getting extremely serious, so may I ask for Government time in which to debate what the Environment Agency is doing?