Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between John Penrose and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

There are a couple of exclusions that I think make an awful lot of sense. For example, there is an exclusion about national security, which I hope everybody on all sides of this House would sign up to. However, in principle, to follow and frank the principle that the Secretary of State has rightly put across about how we want to be the most transparent about our use of subsidies—because it will show that we are following those rules, and that we are letting capitalism rip and therefore that productive assets are being used in the most effective way without distortion—in general there should be fewer exclusions, with only the minimal number of exclusions that is safe, although I completely accept that there will need to be some. There is no reason why we should worry about disclosing pretty much any subsidy, particularly because local councils, for example, already have to report anything they spend above £500. They already take records, keep notes, and publish those details, and it would be peculiar to say that although they have to declare spending above £500, they do not have to declare subsidies above £500,000. I am not sure that is terribly consistent.

The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out that when subsidies are notified they have to be turned round and approved or disapproved by the CMA within 30 days. That is entirely right. We need a prompt, nimble, and agile response in order for our economy to work in a prompt, nimble and agile way. It therefore seems odd, if I may put it politely, that we are allowing subsidies not to be registered for up to six months after they have been made. We will therefore have fewer subsidies declared, in a way that does not match what local councils already have to declare. Councils already have to keep such information and data; it is not something they will have to start doing from scratch, and all they will need to do is paste it on to a central database. They also do not have to put it out for six months. These are small technical tweaks, but they are central to delivering on the principle, which the Secretary of State rightly enunciated.

[Sammy Wilson]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that a subsidy could be well in place for six months but then there would be a challenge period of 30 days? If there was a reasonable challenge and another body had lost out, would it not be a bit late?

[John Penrose]

The right hon. Gentleman is right, particularly because in the modern digitising economy, everything is moving faster and faster every year. Even if that issue was not a problem before—and I think it probably would have been—it certainly would become one in future. There is scope for tightening that part of the Bill technically, so as to deliver on the principles that the Secretary of State has rightly enunciated regarding timing, the degree of transparency and the level of disclosure. As we will have nothing to hide, we should not hide it; we should get it all out there and ensure that it is available.

Draft Historical Abuse Bill (Northern Ireland)

Debate between John Penrose and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I completely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. He is not the only person to have made that point this afternoon, and I doubt he will be the only person across the communities of Northern Ireland to make it either. There is huge urgency and impatience about this. As I said, I cannot bind the hands of my successors, but I am reassured that the urgency and importance that everyone here attaches to the subject will come across loud and clear to whoever the business managers may be. There are other important issues on the political horizon—he does not need me to tell him that—but that message will come across loud and clear, and I thank him for helping to drive the message home.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I was serving in the Northern Ireland Executive when this issue first came to their attention, and two things were very clear in our discussions. First, perpetrators of abuse should be held culpable for that abuse and for compensation. I hope that over the summer the Minister will have discussions with the civil service in Northern Ireland to ensure that the discussions about contributions from those named in the Hart report can commence. Secondly, any money made available should be made available to those who have suffered; it should not be absorbed by huge legal bills, as often happens in such cases. If that is not explicit in the legislation, I hope that before it comes before the House in September the Minister will ensure that the will of the Executive in that regard is also reflected.

[John Penrose]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that where any criminal liability is implied, it will rightly be an independent prosecutorial decision taken not by politicians but by investigators in the correct, normal way at arm’s length from Executives of any kind. He made a parallel but equivalent point about potential compensation contributions that has been made by others on both sides of the House. I want to reflect further on that to make sure I hear the concerns on both sides of the House. Clearly, this will need to be considered carefully.

Pensions for Severely Disabled Victims (Northern Ireland)

Debate between John Penrose and Sammy Wilson

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the issue of the legacy of the troubles goes much wider than the specific point about the victims’ pension and that therefore there are other issues that have not been dealt with through the EFEF Act. He will be aware, because he and I have spoken about it elsewhere, that the Government have just published a digest of the responses to the rather large consultation—there were 17,000 responses—on the proposals for how the broader legacy issues might be dealt with, and in due course the Government will need to set out their response on how to take that broader canvas forward. He is absolutely right that those other issues are not going away and need to be addressed promptly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

If you had called me earlier, Mr Speaker, and upset the leader, I would not have cared at all.

I thank the Minister for his clarification, which will come as an immense relief to many people in Northern Ireland, but can I push him a little further? Some of those involved in terrorist activity now claim that because of what happened to them—they might have been incarcerated, questioned by the police, had raids on their homes—they have suffered depression and a mental illness that qualifies them for a pension. Can he assure us that not just those who have injured themselves physically as a result of their involvement in terrorist activity but those who claim to have suffered mental illness because of such involvement will not qualify?

[John Penrose]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a broader and very important point, which is that, for victims who will qualify to begin with, it is important that we agree and understand that there are valid and very serious conditions that can be non-physical. We would not want to exclude victims who have ended up with a mental illness after being injured through no fault of their own. We should not exclude non-physical injuries from our calculation of how severely someone is injured and therefore of whether they are eligible. He is also right about the flipside. When we are working out who to exclude from the definition—in order to prevent this from becoming a pension for terrorists—mental illnesses and non-physical injuries need to be included in that half of the definition as well.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between John Penrose and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)]

I will try to address a series of specific points that various Members have made during the course of this debate. I will also try to address some of the broader questions, some of them quite fundamental, about the RHI scheme and its many and manifest problems and shortcomings. That is partly because those issues were raised in the debate, but also because we are going on to consider an amendment in Committee and it may help to have a bigger shared fact base. This will not answer all the questions that will, quite rightly, be raised in Committee, but it may at least lay the foundations of that debate and help us to address them at that stage.

As the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) rightly said, we have had quite a narrow debate although with widely shared views across the House. I strongly agree with one point that she made at the end of her remarks, which is that it is easy to forget, amid all the concern about the flaws in the RHI scheme, that it was introduced for a very noble purpose as part of an attempt to decarbonise our economy by increasing the amount of renewable energy in Northern Ireland. That is part of a broader tapestry of other initiatives that are being introduced right across the UK and, indeed, in other countries around the world. We clearly should not lose sight of that—it is a vitally important point.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister agree that it is rather ironic that a scheme that is meant to decarbonise—for some people that is important; for others it is just an expensive burden on the economy—finishes up with wood being put into pellet form in North America, brought in ships across the Atlantic ocean, and then burned in boilers here in the United Kingdom? Does he really think that is a way of cutting down on carbon emissions?

[John Penrose]

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not quite sure why burning wood was any better than burning other things, because the emissions are similar. If my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) were here, he would make the point that we have to be extremely careful about how we calculate the carbon footprint of some supposedly renewable fuels, because if we cut down virgin rainforests to grow things that are then pelletised and burned, the overall genuine carbon footprint is much worse than people like to pretend.

However, my hon. Friend would also make a sharp distinction between what I think is called long-cycle carbon—in other words, fossil fuels, where carbon has been locked away for millions of years, are a net release that makes an overall difference to the level of carbon—and short-cycle carbon, which is a sort of short-term recycling whereby things are grown in the course of our lifetime and burned. I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going into the detail of the level of greenery, but I hope we can all agree that this scheme, with all its manifest flaws, intended to pursue a noble purpose.

Before I go on to the details of the RHI scheme, I will address a few other points. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) asked a series of questions about Northern Ireland housing associations and, I think, was hoping to pin us down on when a piece of legislation might be introduced. I want to reassure him—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made this point, but I will repeat it—that the Government will take that forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) asked about the stronger towns fund and said that he did not feel he had enough of an answer yesterday; I want to ensure that we try to provide that today. He will be aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made an announcement yesterday. The Treasury will apply the Barnett formula in the normal way and confirm the funding for each region in due course. We do not know that yet, but it will come out, and we will seek to ensure that towns in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland can benefit, building on the success of the Government’s growth and city deals.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the applicable costs of the RHI scheme. I will address that specific item before coming on to the broader points. The scheme guidance, which I am sure we are all itching to go through in huge detail, has been published, and it sets out clearly the eligible costs. They are primarily the costs of the boiler. He mentioned costs to do with installation, pipework and the like, and some of those are included as well. Interest costs on borrowing are apparently not included as an eligible cost in this scheme. I wanted to share that with everybody, so that we have a shared fact base before we go into Committee and discuss the detail of the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

Questions have been posed about the up-front payments and how they would be calculated for people who wanted to opt out of the scheme because they felt that if they remained in it, they would lose out too badly. Straightforwardly, an individual’s costs—that means the cost of installation, the capital cost of the boiler and other eligible installation and running costs—will all be included, and they will be reimbursed up to the 12% target rate of return for the revised scheme. All the additional costs of the renewable technology above a fossil fuel one will be reimbursed. That is crucial, because a number of Members have raised questions about what happens to people who are worried that they are going to lose out. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) read out an email he received from someone with precisely those concerns. If they are concerned that it will no longer be economic for them to stay in the scheme, they can opt out. It will be a free option for them, and they are guaranteed to have made 12% on their money if they decide to opt out at that stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Penrose and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 30th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

All I can do here is go back to the Prime Minister’s point of order after the votes last night, where she explicitly said that she was going to take the decisions that had commanded a majority in Parliament back in not only reaching out to people who tabled amendments yesterday, but in her discussions with the EU. I am sure that none of us would want to rule in or out any particular methods of achieving those outcomes that have mandated by Parliament. We need to make sure that those discussions can move forward as freely as possible while still delivering on the outcomes that Parliament has decided.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

This week, the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has indicated that he has a team studying how we could have checks without having any points along the border, including by paperless means and decentralisation—checks away from the border. Will the Minister confirm that he will be seeking to work with the EU to deliver on those things?

[John Penrose]

I can do better than that. The Prime Minister, in her comments last night, already made the point that she wishes to discuss all these things with the EU. I would regard it as immensely promising if such a team were indeed already working on it from the EU’s side.

EU Referendum: Timing

Debate between John Penrose and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Several Members have said that already. The Government have tried to perpetuate these scare stories, but they do not have enough to last them until September. The danger is that there are not scare stories, but scary facts and events in the pipeline that could influence the referendum. Again that might be one reason for the decision to have an earlier referendum. The Minister rightly said that no date had been set and that he was not in the job of giving clues. It was the first time I had heard anybody in the House admit to making a clueless speech. Those were his own words. He said he would not be giving any clues about when the referendum would be held.

[John Penrose]

In my defence, I think the word has a double meaning, and I meant the other one.

[Sammy Wilson]

It does. I accept that. I was simply stating that the Minister had indicated he was going to make a clueless speech. The one thing I would say to him is that he has already ruled out certain dates, so ruling out one more day in the 670 days that remain before the last date on which the referendum could be held is not an unreasonable request, especially when there has been such unanimity among the devolved Administrations to do so. I hope that the Minister carries back the message that has come from the Chamber today.

Let me go through some of the arguments used by those who oppose the motion. The first is that using the term “rushed” is a bit over the top. I noted that the hon. Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Macclesfield (David Rutley), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) all queried the point about the referendum being rushed. Of course the debate about our membership of the EU has been going on for some time now, but the referendum is going to be on the Prime Minister’s promised reform, and we do not yet know the terms of what he has got. Those issues will have to be addressed along with all the wider issues affecting our membership of the EU.

It is not a question of our simply having talked about the issue for a long time. The same thing could be said about what happens between one election and another. All the issues pertaining to an election are discussed over a five-year period, but the election campaign is the time when people focus most on those issues. When we talk about the referendum being rushed, we are simply asking why we should compress the debate into a short period, especially when it has implications for the devolved Administrations.

I have not heard any Member answer the point put time and again by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond): how this will affect Administrations that are having elections. Governments will need to be formed after the elections, but instead of getting into the full role of forming a new Government, a new Administration and a new programme for government, we will be into another period of purdah for at least six weeks—after having one of at least four weeks beforehand. That is disruptive of government, and this important point has not been addressed by any Members participating in the debate.