Gurkha Pensions

Debate between Jackie Doyle-Price and Guy Opperman

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and put on record the House’s view that she has been an amazing champion of the Gurkhas in all she has done. Although we owe a huge debt to them, does she agree that the inquiry she has led so ably on a cross-party basis and today’s debate are an opportunity for us properly to address the issues that are concerning us in the report?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Absolutely, and that is very much the spirit in which we have approached the inquiry. We have tried to understand the issues from a Gurkha perspective, but we want to hear from other Members about the wider perspective. Ultimately, we are talking about issues that will impact on the whole British Army and that will have a bearing on the future of the Gurkha regiment in the British Army, and I am sure we all wish to retain that, as we are soon to celebrate 200 years of Gurkha service and we hope to have more. We must also be conscious that we are the guardians of the taxpayers’ pound. Anything we do to address any grievances must bear all those principles in mind, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Approximately 20,000 veterans are in receipt of Gurkha pensions. The Gurkha pension scheme was established in 1947 by royal warrant and is the oldest pension scheme in the armed forces. It should be noted that pensions for British service personnel were not introduced until 1975. The scheme was designed to give Gurkhas sufficient to live on in retirement in Nepal and was paid on completion of 15 years’ service from the point of exit. That is an important principle to bear in mind. The fact that it was established indicates a desire at the time to do right by Gurkha veterans as they retired to Nepal, recognising that on their return there would be limited employment opportunities. It was, dare I say, extremely consistent with our obligations under the military covenant.

The pensioners are today typically on incomes of about £223 a month. We are advised that that can purchase a good standard of living in Nepal, although for those who have settled in the UK it is clearly inadequate. It is those pensioners who believe they should be entitled to the same level of pension as British service personnel.

Hospital Car Parking Charges

Debate between Jackie Doyle-Price and Guy Opperman

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend has put a very important point on the record. It illustrates again that when management thinks about patients rather than managing the accounts, it can come up with solutions that are good for the patient.

We have all had many representations from individual patients about the costs they have incurred personally. We have also heard from pressure groups. In particular, Macmillan has highlighted that cancer sufferers have found parking charges to be a very costly element of their treatment, adding significantly to the financial strain for people who are going through prolonged periods of treatment. As I have said, some of them are losing considerable amounts of earnings during that process. We need to be making it easier for them to get better and overcome their debilitating illness.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate. Of course, it is patients and their families who are the main people affected by this particular issue, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock agree that surely it is wrong that NHS staff, who do such an amazing job in all our hospitals, are in many cases, particularly in my area, required to pay for the parking in the area where they work, thereby reducing their own salary?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. One objection to our campaign on parking charges is that somehow the money would be taken away from health care, but I do not believe that is the case at all. He mentions staff. In order to get the best conditions for care, we need to make it easier for people to go out and work, and access to cheap parking is very much a part of that.

Biomass Power Generation

Debate between Jackie Doyle-Price and Guy Opperman

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I thank the Minister for those comments. I agree that we need to take the wood panel industry with us. I suspect that, with more understanding and dialogue, it will come with us, because the case has been made that we can supply the demand for biomass without impacting the industry’s supply unduly.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I apologise for arriving late for the debate, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) on securing it, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for taking my intervention. I should declare an interest as a member of the all-party group for the wood panel industry, and I have an employer in the industry in my constituency. I absolutely endorse all the points that have been made thus far, but I would make two points to my hon. Friend. The first is that the timber price has gone up by well over half—

[Guy Opperman]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the timber price has gone up by at least half since we have had the domestic subsidy?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

All I can say is that RWE is planning on making a significant investment, and it has invested in its supply chain. The issue that my hon. Friend raises really will not impact on its ability to run the dedicated biomass facility in Tilbury. I would also point out that timber is not the only commodity that has gone up in price in recent years. I really do not think, therefore, that the issue that my hon. Friend raises will be any impediment to further exploitation of this technology.

I look forward to Tilbury rising again and reopening with new permissions and with a brand-new facility. I hope the Minister will look at coming to visit in due course to see how plans are progressing. I am really pleased that RWE remains committed to Tilbury and that, despite having to close its existing facility, it still wants to invest in power generation on the site.

I know the Minister does not require too much encouragement in this regard, but I would like to highlight how much this issue illustrates what happens when Governments fail to fight our corner in Europe. I can see a situation coming down the track very quickly where we will be forced to buy more and more electricity from France, in particular, because the regulatory system has favoured nuclear over coal. We all want cleaner, greener energy, but we need to keep the lights on, and we need to make sure that people can afford to heat their homes. For our own energy security, therefore, we need to make the most of the potential of biomass as an energy source, given its generating potential, and given how much more of our domestic demand we will be able to supply.

I implore the Minister to make every effort to ensure that rapidly deployable capacity, in the form of biomass conversion, comes on stream as quickly as possible. In that respect, I cannot add much more to what my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty said in his opening remarks.

I want to make a final point about investment. As a country we rely heavily on private capital to achieve the investment in power generation that we need to meet our energy needs after 2015. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, to achieve that, industry needs long-term certainty to encourage investment, particularly in a world where capital is finite and the market environment very competitive. In addition, we are dealing with energy companies that are global in their reach, and they can easily go and invest their capital elsewhere.

It is telling that coal-fired power stations are being built in Germany, when we have made coal completely uneconomic in this country. When we are dealing with private investors and expecting them to invest billions of pounds so that we can keep our lights on, we must recognise that they are not in it for charity, and we must enable them to facilitate that investment in the best way we can. To put it bluntly, the Department has, hitherto, been not enough about energy and rather too much about climate change. I believe that really has to change, and I know that if anybody will facilitate that change, it is my hon. Friend the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I accept that. We all understand that to kick-start energy policy, there must be subsidy—no one disputes that—and there has been, in a multitude of different energy fields over a long time, under successive Governments, that process. However, just as the Government have reviewed the subsidy that exists in relation to solar or other types of energy production, so the Government have an obligation to review the extent to which they subsidise domestic wood. I shall go further than that and say this. In this context, it is having an impact on jobs. There is no question in my mind about that. It is also having an impact on the consumer, because as with all energy, there is a degree of subsidy, and that subsidy is coming from the consumer. The consumer is paying, through Government subsidy, for the consequences of the energy production. Therefore, to say that it is without any adverse consequences whatever would be simply wrong.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The area that my hon. Friend is opening up now—the impact on consumers—is a very important one across the wider perspective of energy policy. The reality is that we need to invest in generating capacity, and biomass will be an important ingredient of that. If we do not do that, the price of energy for consumers will go up, because we will be having to buy that power on the open market.