Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

On 23 March, the Government requested many businesses to close their doors to safeguard the nation’s health. We absolutely recognise the huge sacrifices that this entailed. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has been at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, has outlined the unprecedented economic support for businesses and workers across the country.

Like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), I have regular conversations with businesses, business representative organisations and trade unions, and I know that the scale of what the Government have done has been appreciated across the board. We have supported millions of businesses and individuals through a range of support schemes. These have included grants to small businesses—over £10 billion out of the door now —loans, through the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, and bounce-back loans, with more than £14 billion now paid out, as well as business rate holidays, tax deferrals, the job retention scheme and, of course, the self-employed scheme. By any international comparison, the effort that has been put into supporting businesses and individuals to safeguard lives and livelihoods is incredibly favourable.

Alongside those fiscal measures to support businesses and individuals and protect livelihoods, in this Bill we want to provide further support: non-fiscal measures to ensure that we can help businesses at a time of difficulty.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Is the Minister satisfied that the measures being proposed today could expire within 27 days? Is that sufficient time to address the problems that might be coming down the track?

[Alok Sharma]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I will talk further about this, but that is precisely why we have ensured an opportunity to extend the temporary measures in the Bill, but by regulation, so statutory instruments will have to be laid before the House. However, I am sure that the sentiments he expresses are felt across the House. If we need to, I am sure that we will collectively look to extend some of the temporary measures to continue to help businesses.

The Bill will allow business owners time and space to explore rescue options. It will allow directors of companies that are technically insolvent, but simply because of a temporary drop in demand caused by the covid-19 crisis, to proceed with the business without the threat of personal liability. That has been incredibly warmly welcomed by businesses and business representative organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the Business Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for the constructive conversations that we have had about the Bill, including with the shadow Business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We are very much approaching this in a constructive way, and we welcome the discussions.

I want to focus on the provisions in the Bill and the wider policy context around insolvencies, which will determine what happens to millions of businesses in our country. As the Secretary of State implied, we face potentially the most dramatic recession in 300 years. What is more, we know that it is a recession necessitated by the essential public health measures that have been taken to contain coronavirus. Just as we are mutually dependent on each other when it comes to controlling the pandemic, I believe there is agreement across the House that that sense of mutual dependence should extend to the businesses of our country, because it is the right thing to do and because it is in all our interests. Every viable business we save will make the recession less deep and the recovery easier. Every business lost is disastrous not only for that business and its workers, but for our economy and all of us.

We know the great distress that many businesses are facing, and I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to businesses up and down this country that are keeping going in these circumstances, with one fifth temporarily pausing or ceasing trading during lockdown and another quarter saying that their turnover was down by at least 50%. That is the context in which we should test our approach as a country. I acknowledge that this challenge is bound to test the imagination, speed and responsiveness of any Government, and that is why we want to work constructively with them.

In that context, we welcome the measures in the Bill to help reduce insolvencies and will support their passage. As I will explain, we do not think the Bill does enough to address the dangers for what we might call the less powerful interests—particularly employees—when it comes to insolvency and the new restructuring provision, and I will explain what I mean by that.

Let me say something about the headline provisions, many of which we agree with. As regards the permanent measures, we support the moratorium to give breathing space to firms. We welcome the measures to prevent suppliers from sending businesses into liquidation, suspending so-called ipso facto provisions, and I will say something in a minute about our views on the new restructuring plan provision.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for welcoming this Bill, which I do as well. Does he accept that what is so important about the Bill is that it includes and incorporates Northern Ireland absolutely? Northern Ireland is not cut adrift and the Bill does not have some special arrangement that the Assembly will manage; Northern Ireland is part and parcel of it. The measures have given collective support to businesses across all the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland. Without British money, we would have been ruined. That is the bottom line.

[Edward Miliband]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important that the approach is UK-wide, and I welcome that.

Let me say something about the temporary measures in the Bill. We think it makes sense to remove the threat around winding-up orders, for example, to deal with the issue around landlords. We welcome the measures that the Secretary of State put in place, but there is another way around, as it were, which is a landlord issuing a statutory demand followed by a winding-up order. We think that the suspension of personal liability for wrongful trading while insolvent makes sense as a measure, but for a strictly time-limited period. It is important, as I think is clear, that other duties continue to apply to directors.

In addition, easing the requirements on company filing deadlines and AGMs makes sense. Indeed, given proceedings yesterday in this House, the facility in the Bill for virtual proceedings at AGMs carries a certain irony. If only the Business Secretary had told the Leader of the House, perhaps we would have been spared a lot of trouble and a lot of queuing yesterday.

As the hon. Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) have both said, there is clearly a case for a longer period than to 30 June. This is no disrespect to the people writing the Bill, but I think we can agree across the House that the temporary measures will need to be in place for longer. We would be happy to see an amendment that puts the end of September in the Bill, and one of our amendments would do that. I accept the Secretary of State’s point that the change can be made by statutory instrument.

Having given the Bill a broad welcome, I want to raise some issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as I am a director on the board of a couple of charities. Extraordinary and unprecedented times call for very special measures. Without doubt, the Government have produced ultra-special measures to deal with the times in which we find ourselves because of the economic crisis, which has been stimulated by the covid-19 crisis that is upon our nation. I welcome the measures that the Government have taken. As I said in an earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, if Northern Ireland had not received support from the Government and those special measures, quite frankly the place would have gone bust. Those special measures indicated the strength of this Union—they kept it together and demonstrated that, to use a worn-out phrase, we are all in this together, and that, as a nation, we are able to help each other through in difficult times. That is to be commended.

There are businesses across my constituency, and up and down Northern Ireland—indeed, across the entire United Kingdom—that have survived only as a result of the extraordinary and special measures that have been put in place. I believe that we should put on record our thanks and gratitude for the fleet-of-foot way that those measures were put in place for us all.

At times, there has also been a reluctance by other sectors to step up to the mark, and I think the banks could have acted quicker. Most of the complaints that I have had to deal with came from companies that were trading, but that ran into the brick wall of the current crisis. When they approached the banks, which the Government were supporting and encouraging people to support, suddenly the banks put up road blocks and hurdles for people to cross. Of course banks must ensure that they are guaranteed to get their money back and be able to lend fairly, but to put up extraordinary road blocks in front of some companies was incredibly naive at this time, and it left a sour taste in many people’s mouths. I have spoken to some traders in my constituency who say that one of the first things they will look into as soon as this crisis is over is changing their bank because of the way they have been treated. That is a bad mark; that should not have happened or been part of this process.

Other Members have said that what is now required is an economic stimulus, and two or three important steps could be taken almost immediately to help to stimulate the economy. First, we must think differently and think big. Our country deserves a Government who demonstrate that they will provide leadership. Indeed, it has been said that without a vision the people perish, and it is imperative that the Government provide a vision, think big, and demonstrate that they are going to invest in infrastructure and stimulate the economy. They need to invest in bridges, roads, and other things to drive the economy forward. They must encourage Heathrow to get back to developing its hub plan for all regions of the United Kingdom, and stimulate that in a way that provides a vote of confidence that the economy will turn the corner, and do very well once it has.

The Government could also consider other special measures. Members have mentioned some of them, such as coupons or bonds that could be backed by Government money to help stimulate certain sectors, such as the arts or sport. Sovereign wealth funds were also mentioned, and the Government could invest in those. I think that is a good idea. It could even be pushed on to local devolved institutions, which should be looking at regional wealth funds to help stimulate the economy directly.

The huge issue that I really want the Government to look at is new technology. This is an opportunity to stimulate the economy with new technology through, for example, measures to support the development of a hydrogen hub and hydrogen power. We are a potential world leader in that new technology, which will generate employment in the manufacturing sector, use the steel made in this country to produce goods and ensure that we are able to provide something that is zero-carbon and will help the environment. We should be looking at such measures.

I am delighted that the Bill’s provisions are extended to Northern Ireland. I raised with the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate the fact that these are temporary measures—indeed, they will expire in about 27 days if approved today. I think that they will need to be extended well beyond that. I agree with Members who have said that the earliest these measures should elapse is September, or even the end of the year, so that people have time to use the provisions that the Government have given them.

There are a number of core measures in this legislation, which I support, to provide companies with the best chance of surviving the financial difficulties of the covid-19 crisis. Providing insolvency breathing space is essential. The protection from threat of personal liability and aggressive creditor action during this crisis has been mentioned by many Members, and I agree with those provisions. Providing a temporary relaxation of rules surrounding meetings and filings during this time is also very important. The Bill introduces a free-standing moratorium for UK companies, overseen by an insolvency practitioner, to allow time for the rescue conditions to apply, with the moratorium ending if it is unlikely that the company will ultimately be rescued.

Northern Ireland is affected by this legislation in the following way. Clause 4, which inserts new part 1A into the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, and schedules 5 and 6 mean that the moratorium provisions are practically the same in Northern Ireland and GB. Clause 5 and schedule 7 are similar to schedule 3 for GB. Clause 6 and schedule 8 outline the timescale for these provisions and powers for the Department for the Economy. I encourage the Minister to keep in close contact with the Minister in Northern Ireland and the Executive, to ensure that the good flow of conversation and in-step approach remain, so that we can utilise the best provisions being made here at Westminster.

Clause 11 temporarily suspends liability for wrongful trading under the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Clauses 14 to 17, on termination clauses, amend article 197 of the 1989 Order to cover new categories of electricity provider, suppliers of IT goods and services, which is very relevant today, and cases where utility supplies are made by a landlord, and grant a temporary exclusion for small suppliers similar to GB. Those measures are very important for small businesses in particular. Clauses 26 to 33 outline the powers available to amend corporate insolvency or governance legislation in Northern Ireland.

The inclusion of Northern Ireland in this legislation is most welcome. The measures bringing corporate insolvency more into line with that of Great Britain, at least during this time of crisis, are a vote of confidence, in that we are all going to have to emerge from this together—we will have to pool our strengths, share our responsibilities and make sure that the entire kingdom enjoys the opportunity of emerging from this crisis united, stronger and better.

This important legislation supports our companies through the financial difficulties of covid-19. What other measures has the Minister considered to continue to help companies after the initial threat of covid-19 has passed? It is important that we look beyond this. This has to be temporary. We do not want to see this as the main way forward. I hope the Minister will provide the sort of vision we talked about earlier and to which other Members have referred in their speeches. The importance of collaboration across the United Kingdom to help and strengthen our economy is the cornerstone of this proposed legislation. I hope it gets a fair wind. It will certainly have the support of Members of my party in the House today.

Small Modular Reactors

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Mr Shannon, I advise Members that each speaker will have three minutes. I intend to call the SNP spokesman just after 5.5 pm, then the Labour party spokesman—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

Three minutes for him!

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

No, the hon. Gentleman will get more—otherwise, the Minister might only get three minutes. I will call the Minister at 5.20 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

I will not give way, because the other Front Benchers have to get in and I have to restrict my comments.

The first SMR is not due for 10 years. The costs are uncertain. There will probably be limited access to sites, planning delays and rising costs. The UK Government have pursued costly, dangerous nuclear energy over cheap renewables out of misplaced ideology. We have heard about the delays at Wylfa and the collapse of Woodside. That is the pursuit of ideology over pragmatism, and it does not work. The Government are letting people down.

The UK Government are already spending vast amounts on nuclear schemes about which there are safety concerns. They were about to lend £15 billion to Hitachi in Wales for Wylfa before the project collapsed because even that was not enough money. At Hinkley Point C, there is a £30 billion cost to the public sector. The Minister will argue that that is not the case, but the strike price amounts to what the public will be paying over that period to cover the cost of delays, complications, overspends and up-front costs. That is from the National Audit Office, not from me.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Will the Member draw his remarks to a conclusion?

[Drew Hendry]

The fact is that there is a very good future in renewable energy. If the Government set down their ideological opposition, particularly to wind and solar, they would be able to do a lot better in providing the mix that is required.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) once again on securing this important debate. I want to concentrate on the wording of the motion, because we are talking about small modular reactors. A number of hon. Members have concentrated not only on the potential for small modular nuclear reactors, but on the wider issues relating to the nuclear programme. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and the hon. Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) all talked, in one way or another, about the disappointments that have followed the closure or suspension of the existing nuclear programmes, which have featured large nuclear plants. Of course that has been a dreadful disappointment, and a potentially serious problem, for those parts of the country.

It is tempting to say that small modular nuclear reactors are the solution to the problem of size for the future. They are certainly capable of being replicated by modular construction in a way that large plants generally cannot be; they can be deployable locally; they can be deployable on a large number of sites, rather than just the big nuclear sites that recent developments have concentrated on; and they may be able to fit into the future energy market in a way that large power, whatever its origin, might find increasingly difficult. There are a lot of potential positives to small modular nuclear reactors, provided that they can do better, cost-wise, than the nuclear reactors in front of us at the moment.

What concerns me about some of the early information about small modular nuclear reactors is that they do not appear likely to be any cheaper than existing nuclear reactors. I refer to a 2016 report that the Government commissioned about their likely cost. The initial cost is projected to be 30% higher than for existing nuclear plants. As that research projects, the learning curve that would go with the modularisation of those reactors—I am talking about first-of-a-kind—would probably mean that, if several such plants were deployed, the costs could be level with present nuclear plants within 10 years. However, as we have seen recently with Wylfa, one of the issues was the apparent cost of the nuclear plant coming forward, in relation to the power going out to the public, and the unwillingness of Hitachi to go ahead with it, despite substantial assistance from the Government of up to about £75 per MWh for production.

First, it is clear that small modular nuclear reactors have to get their costs down to be viable. The Minister needs to be apprised of that. The Government claim to have invested substantial amounts of money over a period of time in the development of small modular nuclear reactors. There was a competition in 2016 and the then Chancellor—

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think I may have a bit of time, but I will make sure that the Minister can get his comments in.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

You have been speaking for five minutes and 50 seconds.

[Dr Whitehead]

I will try to draw my remarks to a close as rapidly as I can and make only this point on the funding of small modular nuclear reactors, because it is important. The Government initially said that £250 million was available for research, development and a competition. That competition did not take place. That figure was recently replaced by £58 million of funding, which was subsequently reduced to £44 million. Only £4 million of that has been spent, on developing initial feasibility studies for those who want to develop small modular nuclear reactors—

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. I really have to ask you to conclude.

[Dr Whitehead]

Will the Minister clarify what is being spent at the moment on supporting small modular nuclear reactors, and how that will support the development of cheaper and more effective small modular nuclear reactors in future? That is the imperative.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I will try to deal with this briefly. However, before that, in answer to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), we all have great moments in our political careers. I am sure that the Prime Minister’s will be securing a deal next week. Mine is appearing before you in a Westminster Hall debate, Mr Paisley.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Quite right.

[Richard Harrington]

I very much regret that I do not have time to go through all the points raised by hon. Members. I am happy to go through them later with any of those Members, except of course the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—for the sake of Hansard, I am joking. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on securing this excellent debate. The term “Trudy-isation” is beginning to enter our parliamentary language, and she has Trudy-ised the whole debate on small modular reactors.

The development of small modular reactors is very much at the core—excuse the pun—of the Government’s strategy for the development of nuclear power, which we know is an important part of the mix. I would like to answer in detail the shadow Minister’s questions about money, but I do not have the time. Suffice it to say that we are considering a consortium bid. Rolls-Royce is at the centre of that, but many other companies are involved. I obviously cannot go into detail, but this is of the magnitude of money that the shadow Minister mentioned, and it is very close to fruition. We worked closely with all members of the consortium to develop it.

The good thing about this debate is that every Member bar one was very much in favour of the development of nuclear energy, our sector deal and everything we are trying to do to make sure that nuclear remains an important part of our mix, for several reasons. There are security reasons. The point was made about the excellence of offshore and onshore wind and all sorts of wind, but the wind does not blow all the time. There is the green energy point of view, because this will develop a significant amount of carbon-free power. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) quoted President Putin, who made the point that countries that have tried basically to have no nuclear or coal energy do not know what to do. We will not put ourselves in that position. Modular reactors are an important part of our future.

Times are changing and costs are going down. The shadow Minister made the point that we have to be very careful about the costs of small modular reactors. Those are very well known, which means that we have to look at scale. Building one was the original problem, particularly for the two sites at Moorside, which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Copeland. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke so well about Anglesey. The hon. Lady who is the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru—

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

Will the Minister give us timescales for the publication of the possible energy White Paper and for the models being tested by the House? That is important.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

You have time, Minister.

[Richard Harrington]

Thank you, Mr Paisley. The answer is that that will happen in the next few months—in early summer, I hope. Since the hon. Gentleman brings the question up, I confirm that our intention is that nuclear, and the small modular reactors side of it, will be developed in the White Paper. I noted—I am sure the House authorities will, too—his offer to serve on the Bill Committee. That is a little presumptuous, but I hope he may do so. I will conclude my remarks there, because my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland deserves the last word in this important debate.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister. I call Trudy Harrison to wind up.

Bombardier

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I can answer my hon. Friend’s question in two ways. On the aerospace sector, I have already explained how much money has been committed—about £1.8 billion in total—but Northern Ireland is also a very important part of this because it is one of our most important aerospace clusters. As regards Northern Ireland itself, I would particularly point to the recently announced Belfast city deal, which involves investment, again on a partnership basis, of about £350 million, of which aerospace will be a significant beneficiary—not just big companies but many small companies are involved. There is also the multiplier effect of those companies for the economy of Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Not one single constituency is not impacted by this. The supply chain in terms of engineering and advanced engineering in Northern Ireland relies on Bombardier. To put this into perspective for Members in this part of our nation, this would be the equivalent of the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and announcing more than 15,000 redundancies. That is the sobering reality of what we are facing. Will the Minister speak to the Northern Ireland Administration with regard to the monitoring round and release some of that money into the manufacturing side of business, and will he have an impact assessment carried out with regard to the supply chain in Northern Ireland?

[Richard Harrington]

The real answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we really do need devolved government enabled to distribute this money with the specific targeting that he refers to. Generally speaking, our policy is very much to support the supply chain. Obviously, manufacturing is very much part of that because it is where the high-quality, skilled jobs that are part of our industrial strategy come from. I will absolutely make sure that that is the case. I will do my best, in my dealings not just with Bombardier but with many of the other companies involved, to reflect the admirable sentiments that he has expressed.

Bombardier

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman allows me to re-emphasise the conversation that I had with Boeing, which is that if there is to be a continuing relationship, we need the confidence that Boeing will deal fairly with the United Kingdom. If this is to be a strategic partnership, it needs to be a partnership, and partners do not take the kind of action against important United Kingdom interests that Boeing is seeking to take.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that many workers at Bombardier and in the supply chain across County Antrim, and indeed all of Northern Ireland, will find it despicable that some people would come here— indeed, outside this Chamber—and use the peace process, the spectre of the border and the plight of workers as a critique of how the Government are dealing with this issue? We must stand together, united in our approach to this. Will he also give the House the assurance that when it comes to crunch time—and crunch time is coming—the British Government will not be found wanting in how they defend British workers in Northern Ireland?

[Greg Clark]

I can give that complete assurance to the hon. Gentleman. I think this does unite everyone in the House and across all parts of Northern Ireland, and indeed the island of Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has again been assiduous in ensuring that no stone is unturned in making the case, as have the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party and others in Northern Ireland.

A point on which I did not answer the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—I apologise—was about our contacts with other people in the US system: congressmen, senators and governors. That has been carried out, again in complete co-ordination with the Canadian Government, and it has been significantly helped by the cordial relations that exist between the United States and many people in Ireland.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

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

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this Bill serves as an interesting template for taking forward competitive activities post-Brexit? If we can get this right, it might serve to enable other members of the Commonwealth to look at how we can pattern a similar relationship.

[Bill Esterson]

That is a good point, and I will come later to further questions about arrangements after we leave the EU, so that we can continue to benefit from the sort of arrangements set out in the Bill. We certainly need to make sure arrangements are in place to address anti-competitive practices in this country and involving our interests across the world. The Minister might want to address that very good point in her concluding remarks.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the question of establishing such a pattern impacts greatly on our nearest neighbour, the Republic of Ireland? If we can get the relationship right between ourselves and Canada, it might help in getting it right with the Republic of Ireland, which will help us to bolster our trade.

[Bill Esterson]

I think we are in danger of wandering away from the subject—[Interruption.] I have no idea why Conservative Members find that funny, but there we are. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and the Democratic Unionist party are particularly exercised by that matter, among others, but I dare say that this is something that the Minister can pick up on, perhaps on another day.

Competition delivers benefits to consumers, to businesses and to society as a whole. Competition policy therefore contributes to boosting jobs, growth and investment. The Commission pursues this objective by enforcing competition rules, sanctioning breaches and promoting a competition culture internationally. The proposed agreement will improve the administrative co-operation between the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau. Ultimately, consumers in the European Union and in Canada benefit from competition policy and from the sanctions that contribute to a stronger deterrence of anti-competitive behaviour. More effective competition enforcement results in more open and competitive markets in which companies can compete more freely, enabling them to generate wealth and to create jobs. It also gives consumers a better choice of products at lower prices.

This new agreement is substantively the same as the existing one, which has been in place since June 1999. This agreement just adds new provisions on the exchange of information. Even after we have left the European Union, UK companies operating in the EU will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Commission in anti-trust and merger investigations, as all non-EU countries are. Information on UK companies will still be transferable after Brexit. After Brexit, the European Commission will still share information about UK companies with Canada but will not be bound to share the information about the UK it receives from Canada with the UK. I would like the Minister to address that point.

This agreement relates to administrative co-operation between the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau, so public consultation and an impact assessment were not considered necessary by the Government, and, as the Minister has now said on a number of occasions, she does not think that there will be financial implications. The Government have noted in the explanatory memorandum that this new agreement will have no impact on UK law and no financial implications.

The European Scrutiny Committee did not at first clear the proposal. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who I dare say will make a contribution to the debate, requested further information about whether and in what way the United Kingdom could participate in the agreement following withdrawal. The Minister responded to the Committee on 24 October, stating that

“the Government will ensure that the UK is in the strongest possible position to cooperate on competition matters with our international partners...There are a number of options for securing the means for international cooperation…As the form of any cooperation agreement will depend on our negotiation with the EU and negotiations with other countries such as Canada it is too early to say what exact form international cooperation will take.”

That raises a number of questions about transitional arrangements in the longer term. In response to that letter, the Committee subsequently cleared the documents.

That brings us to the question of what arrangements will exist after we leave the EU. The Minister referred in her letter to seeking to extend the current arrangements. For how long does she think that will be necessary? What guarantee is there that it would be possible to extend them? UK companies operating in the EU will still be covered by this agreement. The difference will be that, while the European Commission will continue to share information with Canada about UK companies, that information will not be shared with the UK unless a further agreement is reached. She said in her letter that any co-operation agreement would depend on negotiation. How long does she think those negotiations are likely to take? What will she be seeking to achieve in them? We have now reached the point at which Ministers need to start answering the questions about transitional and longer-term arrangements for these and many other matters.

There is no doubt that competition is vital to our economy, to the success of our businesses and to the prosperity of the people of our country. Encouraging healthy competition is vital. The role of national Governments, and of international co-operation, is to create a fair market, not just a free market. It is also to avoid anti-competitive practices, including the creation of cartels through mergers and acquisitions which distort the market; the undercutting and exploitation of workers and smaller businesses; the use of zero-hours contracts where workers have little choice; the treatment of smaller businesses by banks that will only fund those with liquid assets; and the delays in the payment of invoices by larger firms. Those are all examples of anti-competitive and exploitative practices in which Governments—nationally and internationally—should find ways of intervening to set a level playing field. Governments should be a partner to business and to the workforce. They should encourage those wishing to start and grow a business. They should be investing, and they should have the right strategy for infrastructure and skills. They should have an industrial strategy. Underpinning all that should be the right approach to competition, which is what this part of the Bill is all about.

We need answers to the questions about what happens after we leave the EU and about what transitional arrangements will be in place. The nature of the Minister’s comments in her letter to the European Scrutiny Committee show just how complex these questions are, and it is time we started to get some answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the membership of the convention, but it is also vital that we take every opportunity to make sure we are protecting the rights of citizens.

Turning to the third and fourth draft decisions, SNP Members welcome further formalisation of the working relationship between Canada and the EU in regard to competition laws. These draft decisions, in particular, serve as a reminder of the good business and trading opportunities the EU provides for the UK. A bad Brexit deal, or the fatuous, ludicrous idea of no deal, will make it more expensive and difficult for our businesses to trade with the EU—a market eight times the size of the UK market.

The people in Scotland stand to lose much, with independent estimates concluding that a hard Brexit could cost Scotland up to 80,000 jobs within a decade and that after 10 years average wages could fall by £2,000 a year per head.

[Ian Paisley]

For the record, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Scotland’s largest trading partner is the rest of the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I add my congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you assume your rightful place in this House in chairing these proceedings. It is good to see you in your place. It is also a privilege to follow some of the speeches that have been made here today, especially that of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). When he speaks on these issues, I often think that his constituency has been badly and underwhelmingly named. It should be renamed the rock, because he acts like a rock—he is solid on these issues—when he speaks before this House. Once again, he has shown his breadth of knowledge and skill in this particular area. I wholeheartedly concur with his point that the European Scrutiny Committee should be reactivated—and reactivated very quickly—because, as we exit the EU, we will need to scrutinise these matters very closely and ensure that we consider the details that will come up during the exiting process. The Committee is one vehicle that could be used to that advantage, and I wish him well in his quest to have it re-established.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman on the charter of fundamental rights. It is an absolute dog’s dinner. I will not invite the Minister to comment on that, but he did make a valid point. Many of the shared values that we call rights today originated from this great kingdom under our own rights-based common law. We cast that aside too quickly and think that all those rights were given to us by the EU. We actually bestowed many of the fundamental principles of rights on our neighbouring states. Last year, a display in Westminster Hall celebrated many of the fundamental rights that originated here—from employment rights right the way through to anti-slavery activities. We should take more pride in the fact that this nation is the great bastion of rights and has encouraged rights around the world. I also agree that we are not leaving the European Court of Human Rights. That is an incredibly important point. The ECHR is not affected by Brexit. People forget that. Whenever they hear about Brexit, they all too often think that we are leaving Europe. We are not leaving Europe; we are leaving an economic club that has failed us. We are not leaving those issues of rights.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) made a number of points about some “backroom deal” between my party and the Government of the day. I want to make it absolutely clear that, in my view and in the view of the people in my party and on this Bench, the rights of the unborn child trump any political agreement that has been put in place. I want to make that absolutely and abundantly clear. If anyone thinks that we would trade that issue of life and the sanctity of life on a political deal, they do not understand me and they do not understand my party; they need to be aware of that. For it to be characterised in that way is grossly unfair to members of my party.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about something I said about the deal. I was making a point not about children born or otherwise but about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender concerns in Northern Ireland. He should be willing to clarify that issue.

[Ian Paisley]

I am quite happy that the hon. Gentleman has clarified his comments, but given what has happened in the past week in this House—the passing of the Queen’s Speech and the amendment that was not moved—I think reference has already been made to that. It should be absolutely clear that, in my view and in the view of my party, the unborn is—even in the words of Hillary Clinton—a “human being”. According to science, it feels pain, it knows emotions and it is faithfully and wonderfully made. My party will take a stand on that issue irrespective of the political agreements that are reached. I say that as a warning to others who may seek to raise the issue in the House in the weeks, months and, hopefully, years ahead.

Turning to the issue of competition, which is mentioned in this Bill, and the competitive rights, which have been identified, I welcome what has been put on page 6 of the Labour party manifesto, because it emphasises the importance of what we are discussing today. It says that the Labour party will make sure that we leave the European Union. I welcome that because, when we leave the European Union, we do not half leave it or partly leave it; we get out. It is essential that we get out of the customs union and the single market. We cannot address the competition matters identified in this Bill with Canada, for example, if we do not get out of the customs union. It is absolutely crucial that we leave the customs union. We cannot make free trade agreements with any other country unless we are free to do so, so the quest for freedom is incredibly important. That was driven home to me recently in a piece of correspondence that I received from a large steel processor here in the United Kingdom.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is raising some really important points relating to the competition element of this Bill. He touched on an earlier intervention. Will he say a little bit about how he sees the relationship between the north and south of Ireland working?

[Ian Paisley]

Certainly. I will comment on it after I have made my point about the steel industry. I received a note from the managing director of John Reid and Sons. It is a massive company that has been in existence for 98 years. It said:

“to remain in the customs union would mean that we cannot do our own trade deals with the rest of the world. We have exported to over 140 countries throughout our 98 years in business; we have an idea of what we are talking about…The customs union is a terrible tragedy for Third World agriculture and fisheries, and prevents proper trade.”

That was written by someone who is at the coalface every day and knows what they are talking about. It is important that that point is reflected in this debate.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) has asked me to comment on some of the points that were made about how this matter impacts on the Republic of Ireland. While you would show me great leniency, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were to speak at length today on the Republic of Ireland and on what a future trade deal would look like, I think that, even though you like me considerably, you would probably rule me out of order. I will try to touch on the point. I recommend to all Members of the House that they go to the Library and get a copy of the Policy Exchange document that was published earlier this month. It was written by Ray Bassett, a former ambassador from the Republic of Ireland to the United Nations. The title is: “After Brexit: will Ireland be next to Exit?” It is a very important policy paper that sets out compelling reasons why the Republic of Ireland must follow the United Kingdom out of the EU. If it fails to do that, its trade will be ruined. We have something in common with Canada on that point. For example, Canada has great fishing waters, and it protects those fishing waters for its fishing fleet and fishing companies. In the past 48 to 72 hours, the fishing rights of the United Kingdom have been discussed at some length in the media.

Of course, the Republic of Ireland’s fishing waters are currently underfished, because the Republic of Ireland is able to encourage the rest of the EU to fish in our waters. Once we claim back our fishing waters, Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know what will happen? The rest of the EU will want to fish in Ireland’s fishing waters, putting great pressure on the Republic of Ireland and stealing its catch. It is for such reasons that it is essential that we understand the commercial reasons why it is important for Ireland to exit the EU. I think that I have probably pushed you just enough, Mr Deputy Speaker, with my comments on the Republic of Ireland. I wish that the shadow Front-Bench spokesman would encourage me again, perhaps by asking me another question on the issue, as I would certainly push the matter even further—then we might not get the red flag.

We must make it absolutely clear, as I said earlier, that agreements such as that which we are discussing today impact tangentially on the pattern of how we should do commerce in the future. The Canadian agreements and aspects are very important, because if that is how Canada will be treated by the EU after we leave, we need to take cognisance of what is in the Bill regarding the relationship that we will have with Canada.

In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), let me say that when the UK leaves and Albania and Serbia join—well, I almost feel like saying, “Good luck with that. It will be some club to be a part of,” but I think that would be unfair—those will, ultimately, be matters for what is left of the EU. By the time the accession rights are achieved, the EU will be a very different club from what it is now. When the UK leaves and, as I have predicted, Ireland leaves, although Serbia and Albania wish to join, the EU countries might at that point consider what is in their greater interests. The charges for membership of the EU will be immense. For example, since 2014 the Republic of Ireland has had to pay more than £1 billion to be a member of the EU. It previously paid nothing. If that is what Ireland will have to fork out, what will countries such as Serbia and Albania have to fork out under the new arrangements?

I leave those points for the House to consider and hope that the Minister can reflect on them when she sums up.

Intellectual Property: British Economy

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) on getting the matter on the Order Paper. It is important that other hon. Members have touched on piracy—or the normalisation of theft, as it has been rightly called—as we also see it in many other sectors. For example, 25% of all cigarettes smoked in the UK are illicit. In my country, 40% of all petrol and diesel sales are illicit; in other parts of Great Britain, it is up to 20%.

Piracy is a huge problem, and the hon. Gentleman has really only touched on the tip of the iceberg of how deep that problem is. The people driving piracy are not Sunday school teachers; they form the most evil crime syndicate imaginable. They are gangsters, racketeers and criminals, and they will stop at nothing in pursuing their trade. We should call them out, and I hope that the Government recognise that they must address that— and fast.

[Nigel Adams]

Those are startling figures. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of the potential tax revenues—on 40% of fuel sales and 25% of cigarette sales—that the Government are losing out on? Those are extraordinary numbers.

[Ian Paisley]

On fuel sales alone it was half a billion pounds last year in Northern Ireland. The revenues are incalculable; they are measured in billions of pounds, not thousands. The Government really do therefore need to step up to the mark on these issues. It is something that has been called out many times.

I will focus on the music industry, in particular. I believe it has already been stated that the industry is worth billions of pounds to the UK economy; musicians alone contribute about £3.5 billion to the UK economy. It is therefore right and essential that musicians know that their rights and intellectual property are valued by this country and will be protected by Government action. I used to buy vinyl records and listen to Radio 1, but technological advances haven driven change in the sector; the revolution started in 1987—I bought my first CD in February 1987—and the music industry changed. My children do not even know what a compact disc is; they stream music and use Spotify, which is something I hardly even begin to understand.

The potential now exists to reach billions of people easily all over the world and give them enjoyment and entertainment. However, that process also contains the potential to rip off musicians, songwriters and performers. Streaming services are part-owned by big record labels, which, as has already been said, license music under contract—the terms and conditions of which are hidden from many and are protected by special non-disclosure agreements. Such NDAs have the potential to obscure the basis and chain of payments, and it is only fair that performers and creators of the music that we so enjoy have knowledge of who benefits from their IP and where.

As the technology modernises, so too the chain of payments should be made transparent. As we move towards Brexit, I urge the Government to make the United Kingdom the gold standard for protection of performers’ IP. It is essential that we do that to grab this generational opportunity to make the UK the best and the safest place for IP to be placed, contracted and protected. That would benefit performers and drive the industry, and would see that billion-pound industry grow. That is what we really want to see.

Since 2000, the music industry has undergone revolutionary change in how it does business, from physical sales of vinyl and CDs to digital downloads and subscription streaming. It is now essential that the UK makes the contract framework for streaming as equally modern, robust and revolutionary as the actual streaming services themselves. Streaming music is set to become the most significant revenue stream for recorded music. It is essential that the rules and contracts governing distribution keep all parties safe and protected from exploitation in that process.

We can see that being done, in terms of transparency of contracts. I have already touched on how NDAs should be open and transparent, so that performers, musicians and songwriters know who benefits from their IP. Payments to performers should be fairly calculated and easily understood by the performer, whose statutory rights the Government should seek to protect in a robust manner so that they are encouraged to stay, perform and create in the UK, and to be part of the thriving industry. The UK could be recognised as the safest place to do business in this field—I think we can see that happening—and not a place where people get exploited. Giving a performer or artist the right to know who benefits from their IP is essential in my view.

There are three main music labels in the UK, which control 70% of the music market between them: Warner Brothers Records UK, Sony Music UK and Universal Music UK. They are not yet fully signed up to the fair digital deals declaration; I urge the Government to take this moment to encourage them to do so, so that there is a good agreement between the big labels and people who wish to perform. Streaming has opened up an exciting, rich vein and existing contracts could now be exploited. The Government need to put their mind to funding a contract adjustment mechanism that brings old contracts into sync with new technology in a fair way. If they do, we will see the industry thrive, and we will make the big licence controllers and big labels pay to do good business here in the UK. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty on getting this matter on the Order Paper and allowing us to get these issues out in the open and discuss them today.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I welcome your chairing, Mr Gapes. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) on the fantastic work he does in stewarding and chairing the all-party parliamentary group on music. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

We do not do much wrong when it comes to intellectual property. We are an IP-rich and creative nation, with an IP framework that is pretty much the envy of most comparable nations around the world. Based on any global IP indexes, the UK is about the top country in all areas, such as protection of copyright, looking after patents and enforcement. We need that because we are an IP-rich nation with a thriving creative sector and an abundance of world-class creative industries. In any of the major disciplines in the creative environment—whether it is music, TV, design or fashion—the UK is among the top three. It is imperative that we create the optimum conditions for our inventors, creators, designers and wonderful artists to develop their businesses and grow, so that we can continue to do well as a nation.

Intellectual property affects every single one of us and impacts on nearly every aspect of our day-to-day lives. The content we consume, support for our small businesses and the research and development arms of our multinational companies are all predicated on a successful IP framework. We tinker and mess with it at our own risk. It is vital to economic prosperity in the UK and is the foundation from which people can derive value from their innovation and investments.

The statistics speak for themselves. As the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty said, the creative industries alone are worth £87.4 billion a year in gross value added. They employ almost 1.5 million people in the UK, and about £1 out of every £10 of UK exports is predicated on IP-supported industries. It is perhaps the fastest growing sector in our economy. Is it not a wonderful way to reindustrialise our nation, by building and growing our economy on the imagination, creativity and talent of the people of this country? What a fantastic way to grow our economy.

It is particularly good to see the Minister in his place. He is the first Conservative Minister with responsibility for intellectual property we have had in this House; all the others have been in the House of Lords. That is a welcome development, because it allows hon. Members with an interest to debate these critical issues with the Minister and question him at departmental questions. I think he is the first IP Minister in this House since the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) back in 2008. I look forward, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on intellectual property, to working closely with the Minister. I would not say that it has been chaotic, but there has been an issue with how intellectual property has been stewarded by this Government. It has been shunted between various Departments, with no clear chain of command. At last, we have that, and I hope the Minister will take full advantage of the opportunities it presents.

As well as being valuable to our economy, our IP framework is constantly evolving, and we have to deal with current issues and new ones that await us around the corner. That is because IP and most of the things it is responsible for stewarding and looking after exist on the very cutting edge of technological innovation. We have to remain vigilant about where the dangers will next appear and how they will present themselves.

I am on my second Digital Economy Bill since joining the House. Looking around the Chamber, I note that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has just taken his place, bear the scars of the previous Digital Economy Act 2010. We just about managed to escape that one unhindered and in one piece. We now have a second Digital Economy Bill going through Parliament. There have also been two significant reviews of our IP framework over that period: the Gowers review and the Hargreaves review, which concluded a few years ago. Both of those have flavoured the Government’s response to the big issues in intellectual property.

The APPG on intellectual property has produced a series of reports and reviews, one of which was published today, about protecting intellectual property. I hope the Minister will give a considered response to the many things we discovered in the conversations we had with many stakeholders. I will turn to some of the conclusions we reached in the course of my contribution.

First, I want to look at the big external issues that impact significantly on our intellectual property framework. They do not come bigger than leaving the European Union. The most significant innovation in the European Union is the delivery of the digital single market. So much effort and energy has been put into that really important work over the past few years, and we are coming close to its conclusion.

While the digital single market has presented a number of difficulties and issues for our creative industries in the United Kingdom, it would be better to be in there, shaping that agenda, than to have to respond to what has been decided by others. Leaving the European Union will mean we have no access to shaping the agenda for the digital single market. The UK has been a strong pro-content industry voice in those EU deliberations, which sometimes balances the views of other member states that do not have the same sort of interests we do in ensuring that the content agenda and industry are properly protected. That will be lost when the UK leaves the European Union.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the single largest market for digital is actually not a country but the cloud? Where the legal protection resides for people who put their IP on to the cloud is really important, so making the UK the home of legal enforcement will therefore be essential.

[Pete Wishart]

It is difficult to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that. We have to look at where the force of traffic is going, particularly when it comes to things like copyright, which is critical for a number of our creative industries. The copyright directives we have signed up to were designed within the European Union, but we are leaving the EU at a critical moment in the development of the digital single market. That could have a massive impact on our own IP legislation.

Most people we spoke to in the course of the APPG’s inquiry said that they would prefer to see the existing legislative framework maintained. We also looked at identifying some of the gaps in legislation that will have to be fixed in order to ensure that UK creators and businesses are properly able to protect their IP in a global market. For example, the erosion and loss of access to EU design rights for our design industry post-Brexit would have a significant and negative impact on our designers.

I also chair the all-party parliamentary writers group. We have great concerns about retaining the harmonisation of copyright across Europe. Europe is the largest market for books and will continue to be an important market for book publishers and writers in the future. It is therefore imperative that the UK’s copyright legislation is consistent with remaining EU members, to reduce additional costs for business.

We have two years left at the top table when it comes to the negotiations, consultations and conversations about the shaping of the digital single market. I encourage the Minister to use those two years as productively as possible, to ensure that the UK’s content industry will be properly looked after and represented after we leave the European Union. I hope he will reassure me today that IP rights and IP-supported business will be at the heart of any new trade arrangements and agreements we have with other nations throughout the world in the next few months and years.

As well as concerns about the EU and external issues, the APPG on intellectual property heard from witnesses about a number of emerging threats being faced by IP owners. What concerned us more than anything was the sheer range of those threats and how quickly they are emerging and developing. While technology provides huge opportunities for businesses to expand their market and access new customers, it can also undermine a creator’s ability to commercialise their intellectual property.

Those who seek to profit from IP infringement are more than prepared to exploit new technological developments to challenge the law, and they do not come any bigger than digital TV piracy. It is absolutely right for hon. Members today to have focused their remarks on the real threat of digital TV piracy. The hon. Member for Cardiff West is right that the Digital Economy Bill presents an opportunity to put that right. He is also right to say how slow Government seem to be to respond to those emerging threats and challenges. He and I both remember the early days of the music industry, which faced the same range of challenges, being at the forefront of technical innovation. The first Digital Economy Act, of 2010, probably had the music industry in mind more than anything else when it tried to deal with the issues of piracy by the sending of notifications and by talking about certain measures that could ensure that rights holders and artists would be properly protected. The Government have an opportunity with the current Digital Economy Bill to deal with the threat that has emerged and is now completely apparent. Nineteen per cent. of households have access to IPTV boxes. It is now television—production companies and satellite broadcasters—that is at the forefront of the challenges, and the Government have an opportunity to deal with that and put it right.

Another threat to intellectual property that we have heard about in the all-party groups is stream ripping. That is an increasing problem for the music sector and threatens not only musicians, but the new, legitimate safe-harbour streaming services. Again, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty was right to raise it as a concern.

What concerns me more than most of the things that we have heard about is the parasitic or copycat packaging used by competitors to boost sales by confusing and misleading consumers. That is not a new or emerging threat; it has existed for a long time, and we constantly hear about and return to it in the all-party IP group. However, something has to be done about it now. When we go to a supermarket and look for our favourite products, we see all the poor copies sitting right next to them—the packaging is deliberately designed to confuse customers. The Government now have to challenge this. It is totally legal at the moment, but it short-changes consumers and lets down some of our famous brands, which would expect customers to be able to go straight to them.

We have heard about a few issues with 3D printing. That offers immense opportunities for creators, businesses and consumers, but also presents many risks, which we are understanding more and more. Responding to the challenges is not easy, but I think that we have a means of doing that with the Digital Economy Bill. It is some six years since the last digital economy legislation and, if possible, the Government should look to do what they can to address some of the new challenges in the current Bill. It certainly provides an opportunity to tackle digital TV piracy.

There are some positive developments, as we have heard. The new voluntary code of practice agreed by the Government and some of the web hosts is progress. It does not solve or deal with the problem conclusively, but it is right to characterise that arrangement and agreement as progress. The code, which has been signed by Google, Bing, BPI, the Motion Picture Association and the Alliance for Intellectual Property, seeks to demote links to websites that are dedicated to infringing content for consumers in the UK.

While I was listening carefully and intently to my colleagues today, I had a look at some of the sites again. We still find that illegal sites selling artists’ works appear at the top of any searches too regularly, so the code is welcome and is clear progress. It shows what can happen when we consistently and continually ask the Government to do something. It was a Conservative party manifesto commitment. It is right to encourage Government as much as possible to focus on how this is all going to work out and not to rule out the prospect of legislation if it does not work. I think it was the hon. Member for Cardiff West who said that if there is no stick to encourage some of the web hosts, a further sanction will be needed—the Government should consider legislation if the current measure does not look as though it will work.

I also want to support the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty on what we refer to as the value gap. We must ensure that the artists who produce all the wonderful works that we admire and appreciate are properly rewarded for the work that they do. Too many services use copyright-protected content to build businesses. They do not actually create any of the works—they just host them—but they seem to be earning the huge profits on the back of the artists and creators. They create that gap whereby they are earning millions and millions of pounds, while we still see struggling artists in our communities. We need to see the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Dailymotion, Bandcamp, Vimeo and Metacafe properly dealt with and see whether we can reduce the value gap. UK Music’s “Measuring Music” report, which we have heard about, highlighted the fact that one service, YouTube, increased its payments to music rights holders in 2015 by 11%, despite consumption on the service growing by 132%. That clearly demonstrates a value gap.

Tidal Lagoons and UK Energy Strategy

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. Because of the extensive interest in this subject, I have a list of at least nine Back Benchers to call to speak, so I am going to impose a four-minute limit on speeches. The Minister and shadow Minister have indicated that they have a considerable amount to say. With that in mind, we will move straightaway to Liz Saville Roberts.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this debate, which I hope we can use to build the cross-party consensus that we need to get moving on tidal lagoons, as well as many other much needed Welsh infrastructure projects. The Government seem to be rather caught in the headlights of Brexit.

I shall make my case for increased investment and urgency in the development of tidal lagoons in three parts. First, and most appropriately, I will outline the benefits of tidal lagoons for meeting current and future energy capacity requirements. I will then briefly touch on how they can contribute to our environmental targets, before finally outlining the economic benefits. Those Members who are familiar with energy policy will recognise my speech as an expanded response to what is known as the energy trilemma. I will conclude by highlighting the deficiencies in the Wales Bill and how it continues to hamper Wales’s ability to make use of its natural resources.

Eighteen major power stations, totalling 17,767 MW of capacity, have closed since 2012. By 2020, the amount of lost power is expected to rise to over 38,000 MW, representing more than a third of our current capacity. According to Tidal Lagoon Power, that means that, having put everything else into the mix, we will end up with a 32 GW deficit.

The 350 MW Swansea bay tidal lagoon will pave the way for projects between Cardiff and Newport, which are planned at equal capacity to Hinkley Point C. The projects will generate the lowest-cost electricity of all new power stations, and can be online in the mid-2020s. A 3,000-plus MW lagoon on the north Wales coast is planned for completion shortly afterwards, with two other projects in the pipeline for development slightly further down the line. As a fleet, the five scoped projects can generate secure, clean energy for 30% of UK homes for 120 years.

We face a clear and present risk when it comes to our long-term energy security. The highly predictable and secure energy created by tidal lagoons means that they face few of the uncertainties or dangers of other carbon-neutral technologies. A home-grown industry, producing power on our shores—what is more secure than that? What is there to like more than that?

I turn briefly to the role of tidal lagoons in meeting environmental targets, which is the second aspect of the energy trilemma. Whatever the impact of Brexit on the UK’s energy and environmental policy, under the Climate Change Act 2008, we are committed to reducing carbon emissions by 57% by 2030, on 1990 levels. As recognised by the Committee on Climate Change, it is likely that new technologies, including tidal lagoons, need to be implemented to meet that target.

In Wales, our abundant resources, particularly tidal energy, give us huge potential to become a world leader in carbon-neutral energy generation. However, Westminster is the dog in the manger when it comes to Wales’s abundant natural resources. For centuries we have been reined back from cultivating and benefiting from our own resources because of arbitrary restrictions from Westminster.

The third aspect of the trilemma is often referred to as energy equity—that is, the affordability of energy for consumers—but I shall also touch on the broader economic implications of tidal lagoons. As the first of its kind, Swansea bay tidal lagoon is undoubtedly more expensive than some of the rival technologies. However, as the project is small, its impact on household electricity bills will be small as well. For consumers, Swansea bay’s real benefits lie in its ability to act as a catalyst for an industry of cost-effective renewable energy in the form of future tidal lagoons.

That said, at a local level, during construction, Swansea alone will employ 2,323 workers, and 181 during operation. It will add around £316 million of gross value added throughout construction, and £76 million annually thereafter. We must also remember the possibilities for exporting the technology. At a time when exports are crucial to the future of the economy, why are the Government dragging their heels on the issue of getting shovels into the ground at Swansea? We can demonstrate to the world that we can lead the way on innovative technological solutions to our energy needs.

I conclude by highlighting the vicissitudes that Wales endures from Westminster. Despite Wales having a natural treasure trove of renewable resources, particularly tidal energy, Westminster refuses to let Welsh people benefit from their own environment.

Unlike under any other devolution settlement, under the current Wales Bill, there will be an arbitrary 350 MW cap on what our National Assembly can develop. That means that the lagoon in Swansea, which has already received planning permission, would have been a project decided on by Cardiff Bay, but any of the other larger projects would remain the preserve of Westminster.

My final plea to the Minister is this: allow the people of Wales to control their own natural resources, so they can make the best use—

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady will resume her seat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

We have had an excellent debate, with contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber indicating almost unanimous support for the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. That outcome—the clash of ideas in the white-hot heat of full agreement—should be impressed on the Minister. Even though there was what might be regarded as one dissenting view from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), I think that she supports the idea. She made some important points about value of money and about how careful one needs to be to get that right.

We can, I think, say that there is agreement, more or less, about the principle of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon and full agreement, at least by the Opposition, about the practice. Indeed, Opposition turnout and the first-rate contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), Swansea West (Geraint Davies), Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), Newport East (Jessica Morden) and Workington (Sue Hayman), and by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), indicate just how full the support is on this side of the House, not just from south Wales Members but across the country. I think that is because we need to make it clear that support for Swansea needs to be based, as Members have emphasised, not just on whether we build that tidal lagoon but on what it means for tidal lagoon technology for the UK’s future and what it means also for the series of lagoons that can come about as a result of the Swansea proving lagoon.

That series of tidal lagoons is not a concept based on thin air; it is not about harnessing an as yet untried technology that might come from the middle of nowhere and save us as far as low-carbon power is concerned. Essentially, it works on a simple principle of proven, well-known technology, of water entering the lagoon subject to its flow through a turbine, both when it is coming in and on its release when the lagoon is full, that allows for the generation of some 14 hours of utterly predictable power. We know that the principle works well because, as the Rance barrage in France has shown, the technology is reliable over many years and, as has been mentioned, it is a power source with a lifetime far in excess of those estimated for wind, gas and even nuclear. It is likely also that the outage time over a long period will be relatively low.

Swansea is not a large lagoon in terms of what is possible. It will have an installed capacity of 350 MW, which is approximately a tenth of the most worked-up second lagoon, in Cardiff bay, which comes in at a capacity close to that of Hinkley Point C power station. However, it is the possibility of Swansea being the proving ground for a number of tidal lagoons that will not only be cheaper to construct and operate than Swansea but will open up the prospect of a large contribution—perhaps 10%—of our electrical power needs that ought to be a condition for supporting it. What we should be investing in as a country is not Swansea, but Swansea and the prospect of all the others as a major component of our future energy make-up.

As Members have mentioned, as far as our country’s overall energy make-up is concerned, power plant is going offline at an alarming rate, with 23 GW of conventional thermal plant being closed or mothballed since 2010, and a further 24 GW—mostly of coal and nuclear—to be closed by 2025. It is unlikely that nuclear will even begin to make up that gap. Hinkley is delayed by longer than seven years and will probably not be on line until 2026-27 and, according to the latest consultation, coal is due to come offline by 2025.

We need replacements for the lost capacity, and a lot of that will come from the aggregation of renewables, but at present the only plan appears to be that gas-fired power stations will be built out at some pace between now and the late 2020s. We know that gas power stations are not, at present, getting built and, indeed, the Government are pursuing expensive capacity market operations—with an auction today or thereabouts possibly costing us £2.5 billion—for capacity over the next period. That is the last chance saloon, one might say, for gas plant procurement under the present arrangements. Swansea, and other lagoons, would certainly serve as a substantial alternative to some of that build, which, if procured, would cost substantial amounts—something that needs to be taken into account where value for money is concerned. All energy, at the moment, is expensive to build. All energy, at the moment, is being subsidised in its build. It is not about considering just what Swansea might cost but about what the alternatives might cost as well. Under those circumstances, Swansea performs, in the long term, very well.

Within a few years, perhaps, a number of those replacement power stations will need replacing anyway. Meanwhile, Swansea and other lagoons would have sailed through the period, producing reliable ultra-low-carbon electricity. By the way, in terms of a larger lagoon strategy, they will be able to supply reliable and known amounts of power pretty much round the clock, for the simple reason that the time of high tide varies considerably along the UK coast. I always like to try to introduce a not very well known fact into my contributions and today it is that, right this minute—this very minute—it is high tide in Morecambe bay. That means that if there were to be a lagoon in Morecambe bay it would produce power for seven hours either side of its high tide.



It is not high tide in Swansea. High tide was at 10.20 am. Power could be produced seven hours either side of that high tide, which would overlap almost exactly with the power produced in Morecambe bay on its high tide. With a series of lagoons, there would be round-the-clock, reliable, known, predictable power that was just as predictable and round-the-clock as any nuclear power station or gas-fired power station that we might care to build in this country.

The benefits of developing Swansea and subsequent lagoons are manifest from a low-carbon energy point of view. As Members have alluded to, there would be considerable other benefits, too. Jobs and supply chains would be created, mostly in the UK. It is estimated that 65% of the pathfinder project spend will go on UK content, which is close to the figure achieved by the North sea oil and gas industry. There would be 200 jobs in Swansea and perhaps 11,000 jobs in Cardiff during construction, and several thousand jobs during operation. Developing Swansea is important for what UK plc should be doing to secure the exportable potential of those technologies in which we are world leaders. We certainly are leading in tidal, tidal stream and wave.

As the hon. Member for Aberdeen South said, we only have to look back a little to see how close we came to securing exportable UK industry in wind before we lost our lead and most of our manufacturing and expertise to others, most notably Denmark, because we did not back the development of our world lead through industrial strategy. Yes, I have mentioned the words “industrial strategy”. It appears in the title of the new Department—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—but there is still an absence of anything that looks like an actual industrial strategy from the Government. We were promised a Green Paper on industrial strategy would appear shortly. With lagoons, we have an industrial strategy in the round already, with jobs, a supply chain and exportability. It is running up to us, metaphorically asking us to bite its hand off, and at the moment we are not responding in a positive way.

In all of this, we have to consider the question of value for money, which the hon. Member for Eddisbury mentioned. Comparatively, lagoons provide value for money. Undoubtedly even Swansea will come in as better value for money for electricity-generating purposes than the deal we have concluded with Hinckley C. Comparatively it is in the same league as offshore wind. A series of lagoons would certainly be much better value overall, although we need to cast our minds towards the longer term in thinking about value. Swansea is asking for a CfD for 60 years. That is half the operating life of the lagoon, with payments reducing substantially over that period. Swansea is not asking for a block CfD degressing through future projects; it is asking for a CfD degressing within the project’s lifetime.

I know the Government have not been idle in all this, although on the surface not much has happened since general support for the idea of the Swansea bay lagoon was included in the Conservative party’s 2015 election manifesto. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon said, it was also in the manifestos of all the other major parties. I hoped we would hear something positive about Swansea in the autumn statement, but nothing was announced. We will have to wait until the Hendry review has been examined. That review is headed by an estimable former Energy Minister, the right hon. Charles Hendry. I am confident he will have a positive look at value for money and the bigger picture I have described of the lagoon, but we do not know where that review is. We think it is on its way to Government as we speak, but we have not yet had any confirmation that it has been received, or whether there is a timetable for looking at that review or for action after it has been considered. I join my hon. Friends in calling for early publication of the review so that we can all have sight of what it is about. We also call for an early Government response to that review, even if a final decision about proceeding with the Swansea tidal lagoon has not been made.

I conclude by emphasising that timing is important. We have a worked-up, permitted, committed plan that cannot stand in suspended animation while people spend so long making up their mind. Swansea bay, in case anyone needs reminding, is not an interesting concept that we can cogitate on at our leisure, but a real project that needs to be developed within a reasonable timescale. Otherwise all the money invested in it—£50 million—will start to go stale and the project may fail, possibly never to be revived. We need to get on with it, not just for Swansea’s sake, but for the sake of a real solution that could be producing power by the very early 2020s if it is given the go-ahead now. It would be a solution for our mounting energy gap in the early part of the next decade.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

If the Minister can take about 12 minutes, that will give Mr Crabb a minute and a half to wind-up at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am very short of time. I am so sorry. I have taken an awful lot of interventions, and I want to make progress.

I note the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire for the proposed Swansea bay project, but it is the Government’s job to consider the advantages and disadvantages and to scrutinise the evidence to ensure that decisions are taken in the longer-term interests of the UK and consumers. It is worth focusing on the significant uncertainties associated with the project—in particular, the use of a new and untried technology in a marine environment, the length of time over which the commitment would be made, and the planning issues, which have already been mentioned.

Since the debate on the economic impact of tidal lagoons in March, the Department has continued to have discussions with the developer of the Swansea bay lagoon. I cannot comment on those discussions, given their commercial nature, but the most recent proposal put forward by the developer would be a very significant deviation from current Government policy. It would not be impossible, but it would require careful consideration. We have always been clear that we will consider the findings of the independent review of tidal lagoons and all other relevant factors in deciding whether to proceed with negotiating a CfD on this project. The developer is aware of that.

The issue of value for money quite properly remains at the forefront. I mentioned the concerns about consents and leases, decommissioning and the supply chain. I note that the China Harbour Engineering Company is no longer working with the developer. There is also an issue of state aid approval. The point is that, even under ideal circumstances, it will take some time to resolve those issues, and the Government will need to take our time to consider the review and make a judgment in a proper and effective way.

As this important debate draws to a close, let me say that I expect a copy of the review’s report to be on my desk and those of colleagues very soon, and we will give it careful consideration. I assure hon. Members that the Government will strike the right balance between responding in a swift and timely way and taking the time required to consider this complex issue in the detail it deserves.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Mr Crabb, given that the Minister has been generous in giving up a bit of time, you have the opportunity to accept a bouquet and take a bow, but not much more, before I put the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the catapult centres. We are extremely proud of them and we gave a manifesto commitment to continue to support them. They play a fundamental role in our vision of an innovation-led economy.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

UK goods and foods can compete on quality and cost with any in the world, but freight charging can remove the cost-quality advantage. Will Ministers carry out an assessment of freight charging in other countries for the export of manufactured goods and what advantage that would give to Northern Ireland and other regions?

[Mr Hurd]

The Department is and will continue to be rigorous in engaging with sectors across the economy to understand the issues of competitiveness and to understand where playing fields can be levelled, so that that can inform the negotiating strategy and the industrial strategy.

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis]

I did not know that, but do you know what? It does not surprise me in the slightest.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, during the 1970s and 1980s, when I was a teenager growing up in the part of the United Kingdom where I live, the unemployment level was regularly over 30%?

[Ian C. Lucas]

There was a Tory Government then.

[Ian Paisley]

No, there was a Labour Government.

Today my children, aged 18 and 19, see an unemployment level of 5% or 6% in some areas. Will the hon. Gentleman explain the analysis that he has given to the House, suggesting that there are no jobs? There are jobs, and there are opportunities for people.

[Clive Lewis]

I think that the peace process—a Labour-oriented peace process—would have had a great deal to do with that.

[Clive Lewis]

I will make some headway now. I can see that you are agitated, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Ian Paisley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to use the peace process as an excuse for unemployment legislation?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for me to decide whether what a Member who has the Floor is saying is reasonable or otherwise, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) will bear in mind what has been said by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and will moderate the way in which he is using his excellent rhetoric.