Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Rights

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

The debate can technically run until 6.04 pm.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights for creative workers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am delighted to have secured a debate on such an important and dynamic topic.

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence seemingly knows no bounds. Each week, a new AI tool is launched that drives further change across business, science, the arts and everyday life. When I applied for the debate, no one had heard of ChatGPT, but now it is writing speeches for the Chancellor. AI can undoubtedly bring significant advancements across a variety of fields, from aiding medical diagnoses to predicting environmental disasters. AI is transformative. It goes further and faster than humanly possible. Quite rightly, it has been identified as one of the UK’s key growth industries, and it is vital that Government policy supports digital innovation to position the UK as a world leader in this field.

But just as AI brings many benefits, it also carries significant risk. AI is rapidly permeating the creative sector, creating visual art, prose, music and film at a pace and cost that humans are unable to match. For creatives, the risk of AI-generated material flooding the market gives rise to significant regulatory and ethical challenges, but these can be overcome, or at least mitigated, with well thought out and considered policy that balances the legitimate concerns of creatives with the need to foster digital innovation. I am therefore pleased to bring this debate to Parliament to discuss those challenges on the record and to give a voice to the millions of creative workers across the UK whose careers will be impacted by AI.

We have all seen how quickly AI can redefine industry norms. We must start exploring how we balance our digital and creative future. What is the outlook for our musicians, journalists, visual artists, publishers and performers in an increasingly computer-powered world? With the help of the Chamber Engagement Team, I conducted a survey of over 200 creative workers to hear how AI was impacting their work. Many said that their work, which they own the copyright for, had been used without their consent by AI companies. One respondent, Richard, noted that, in recent weeks, almost 600 of his copyrighted images had been scraped off the internet to train AI platforms, for which he has not received a single penny. Another survey respondent, Henry, said:

“Why should an AI company be able to blatantly copy and capture the ‘essence’ of how I compose music and monetise it, for free?”

This bypassing of copyright has resulted in creatives feeling that AI is undermining their skills and devaluing the creative process, as well as having a detrimental impact on their income.

The respondents to my survey are not alone. A significant volume of active legal battles regarding AI and intellectual property is currently going through the courts. Intellectual property rights and copyright laws are fundamental to the success of the UK’s world-leading creative industries. They not only protect the integrity of original work, but provide a revenue stream to ensure that creatives can make a living from their work. Copyright therefore has both an economic and a moral importance for creatives. But rather than looking to ensure current protections are upheld and enforced, last June, the Intellectual Property Office published proposals for an all-out exception to copyright for text and data mining in order to promote AI, with no opt-out for rights holders.

Under these proposals, companies across the world would be able to use UK creatives’ material to produce clean, new material that they could sell and even obtain copyright for without having to gain permission from the creator or pay for a licence. This would see a huge transfer of value from individual creatives to tech companies and strip creatives of the opportunity to refuse or grant permission for the use of their work by AI companies, placing thousands of jobs within the creative sector under threat.

These proposals to dramatically widen the text and data mining exception have been met with staunch resistance from the creative community, which has emphasised not only their economic harm but the damage that the erosion of intellectual property rights will do to industry as a whole by stunting future creativity. UK Music has referred to the text and data mining exception as “music laundering”. Equity, the trade union, has said that the proposal

“could be a huge assault on the property rights of performers.”

The Publishers Content Forum has said that the proposals would disincentivise further investment in high quality data. The Design and Artists Copyright Society, which represents visual artists, has warned that

“this change will have far-reaching detrimental consequences”.

It has urged the Government to

“look again at how the policy objectives”

of supporting AI-driven technologies

“can be better met without undermining creators’ rights.”

After hearing evidence from some of those groups and many others, the Lords Communications and Digital Committee found that the IPO’s text and data mining proposals were “misguided” and advised that they be dropped “immediately”. I was therefore encouraged yesterday to hear the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), tell the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that she was “pretty confident” that the text and data mining exception would not be going ahead as proposed last summer.

As the Intellectual Property Office falls within the remit of the Minister responding to the debate, I am hopeful that he will confirm that the Government will not proceed with the all-out exception to copyright. That news would be welcomed across the creative sector, but a number of questions remain to be answered. Why were the proposals ever signed off? Who asked for them? What issue were they trying to solve? On what basis was it deemed necessary to adopt such a broadbrush approach? What evidence is there that the copyright exception will benefit the UK economy in general and the promotion of AI specifically?

If the proposals are indeed not proceeding as originally intended, how will the Government ensure that stakeholders are thoroughly consulted on alternative proposals to avoid a repeat of last summer? How will Parliament be consulted to ensure that the correct balance between promoting our creative sector and developing AI can be achieved? Both sectors are strategically important to the UK.

Many of the creative workers who responded to my survey expressed a clear desire for robust enforcement of current copyright protections, with any form of open access text and data mining arrangement offered on an opt-in basis for creatives. One respondent, Ian, said:

“If musicians and composers wish to sell their rights to software companies to train their systems then that is their right, but the default should be that it is illegal to use any music without permission, and it must be enforced robustly.”

There does not seem to be a shortage of free data online. Google has this week revealed a new AI tool that is able to generate music from a short textual description using only work that is not protected by copyright. Other survey respondents advocated stricter rules relating to copyright infringement and tougher legislation to improve copyright protection of individuals and companies.

What is the solution? How do we balance the legitimate concerns of rights holders with the need to foster an environment that stimulates innovation in AI? The answer cannot simply be plucked out of thin air. It needs to be worked out in detail after careful discussion between Government, officials and stakeholders from across the full breadth of the creative sector.

The creative industry, like all sectors, will have to adapt to accommodate AI, but the industry is capable of and already making progress with that. Creatives have largely accepted that AI-generated content will have its place in the market, and they are already using AI to enhance their work by driving efficiencies and extending their reach to new markets. It also gives rise to a number of new licensing opportunities to generate value for creatives. However, a solid regulatory framework is essential to protect their rights and ensure that they can take part in value creation and retain control over their work.

My team and I have spoken to a number of bodies across the creative sector, whom I thank for sharing their insights. It is clear that the passion that drives our creative industries is still well and truly alive. That is not to say that the creative industries will not face challenges from technological advancements. AI can operate faster and more efficiently than humans, but it will never be able to draw on the lived experience of humans.

The arts bind us together as a society. They create a collective identity and a shared cultural experience. The connection drawn between reader and author, listener and songwriter, and artist and viewer cannot be replaced by a robot. The value, beauty and joy of the arts is that they reflect the human experience. How sterile and lonely our lives would be if human life were only to be captured on servers and in pixels. How deprived we would be if algorithms served us up only what they thought we wanted to hear and see and we no longer had the opportunity to encounter something completely different.

We must also remember that creators are individuals who often dedicate their lives to their craft. History teaches us that as manual workers are replaced by machines, skills atrophy as demand for them falls. People work hard to develop a skill because they hope to earn a living from it. If the economy no longer demands skills in the creative sector, they will start to decline.

Amy, a composer who responded to my survey, said:

“We train for many years, often at our own expense, to develop and hone our skills in order to share our music. Yet with every week that goes by, we see our music being devalued at every turn. We should be embracing musicians, composers and artists, not trampling over them with the click of a button.”

If creative industries no longer present a viable career option, we risk deterring future entrants to the sector and depriving future generations of creative skills. Another survey respondent, Oliver, noted:

“AI threatens having a creative industry that continues to breed and create new ideas.”

We must embrace, rather than resist, AI developments. Unleashing innovation in AI is central to economic growth, but that objective cannot be pursued at the expense of creatives. We cannot let AI replace the human creators who have built our world-leading creative industry, nor can AI content be produced off the backs of hard-working creatives without their consent. I urge the Minister to confirm that the Government will not proceed with the text and data mining exception proposed last summer, and I would welcome his assurance that all relevant stakeholders will be properly consulted in the development of alternative proposals to balance the needs of our creative and digital economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am mindful of the need for the wind-ups to take place, so I will try to be brief.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on introducing the debate and rightly stressing that there is a balance to be struck. AI will bring huge benefits to our society and to the cultural sector—indeed, the sector has been using it for many years—but it needs to have rules. We cannot have an ideological move towards tearing up rules with a deregulation agenda. Every industry needs regulations, whether they are electricity regulations or financial regulations. They benefit not only consumers and, obviously, the workforce, but companies, which get a degree of certainty about the areas in which they operate.

Colleagues have looked at some of the technical aspects and some of the specific effects on the industry. I want to put the issue in a slightly broader context. The music industry, which has rightly drawn attention to a number of the difficulties here, is one of the wider cultural industries in this country. It forms an enormously powerful ecosystem that is important not just in and of itself, and not just because of its economic benefits, but because of its wider societal benefits. It is one of the things—it is certainly not our weather—that makes the UK an attractive place to visit and work, not necessarily just in the cultural industries, but particularly in industries with more mobile international talent. Where are those people going to work? Would they rather work in Frankfurt or in London, Manchester or Edinburgh? These are very important considerations for the UK more widely.

This is not just about the technical side; the creatives are the key. Why did Disney recently change its chief executive? Because it felt that it was getting out of touch with its creative talent. Rupert Murdoch, a practitioner of realpolitik if ever there was one, famously said that “content is king”. By bringing those things together, we form a creative ecosystem that feeds on itself. That is why so many film companies are coming to the UK— because they are able to call on such a wide range of talent. It would be extremely unwise of us to create a deregulated sector, causing those considering where they should locate to ask, “Is my content safe there? Are there other jurisdictions where it would be better protected?” Those are the sorts of issues that we need to be discussing and focusing on.

We should also recognise that, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, it is not just those at the top. Key to the Planning (Agent of Change) Bill, which I introduced, was that nobody started by playing the O2; they started off in small venues and they built up. But people need to be able to sustain themselves. They need to be able to get an income so that they can move from playing part-time in the pub at the weekend to become semi-professional musicians, failing sometimes but then coming back. Not everyone makes it, and others decide it is not for them, but there are those who come through, which is why we had support from so many major stars for that campaign.

I urge the Minister to see that this is important not just for audiences or performers, but for the country. We see adverts at airports about “GREAT” Britain. One of the things that makes us great is our creative sector, across the board. We should be very careful about undermining what has been, for several centuries, one of its fundamental protections: the ability to protect one’s creative content, in order to benefit financially but also to have control over how it is used and to prevent it from being misused.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. I call John Nicolson, who has five minutes.

Family Businesses: Contribution to Local Communities

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Good morning. It is quite warm in here, so if Members wish to remove their jackets, they are free to do so. I remind Members that if they wish to speak they need to stand in order to catch my eye. I call John Stevenson to move the motion.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of family businesses to local communities in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate the importance of family businesses and their contribution to our national economy, our local economy and our communities up and down the country. I appreciate that this might not be the best week for this debate, given that we are approaching Christmas, but this is a really important time of the year for many businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry, and an important time of the year for family businesses to succeed.

I want to put on the record my thanks to the Institute for Family Business for its support and the research that it has carried out into the success of family businesses and also the challenges that many of them face. The institute is the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary group for family business, which I chair, and it has been very supportive for all the time that I have been chairing that APPG.

I want to start the debate with a simple question: what exactly is a family business? There are many different definitions and people will have their own interpretations. The Institute for Family Business set out its own definition in its most recent report, but for me it is quite simply the involvement of family in a business. This can be a sole practitioner—an individual who has set up their own business and is effectively a one-man band. It could be a husband and wife team. The wider family and children could be involved. It could involve other members of the family such as cousins, and of course it could involve different generations. But it is also about the level of control.

When we look at a corporation, we look at the shareholding of that company—how many shares are owned by the family and how many are external. We look at who effectively controls that business. A family business might not always be run by members of the family. It might have independent management or a mixture of family members and outsiders. Each can be equally successful. They all have their own challenges, but that does not detract from the fact that they can be just as successful as a purely family-run business, or as a mixture or with outside control.

The real challenges come when there is third or fourth generation involvement in a family business. They all present different concerns. There are intergenerational matters, and shareholding or ownership of a business can be widely spread among many members of the same family.

What about the sector that the business is involved in? It is estimated that there are around 5 million businesses in the United Kingdom, all of varying sizes. Family businesses make up 85% of that 5 million, so effectively our economy is dominated by such businesses both at the national and local level. I will come specifically to the local level in due course.

The size of the businesses varies enormously. Most are microbusinesses—small one-man bands or small family units. Equally, there are some enormous businesses that have grown from small start-ups. Warburtons is a good example. Historically we could look at Mr Barclay or Sainsbury’s as examples of small businesses many years ago that became huge conglomerates and very large and successful businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson]

I thank the Minister for his contribution. He is a very unusual Minister in Government terms, in that he is a round peg in a round hole.

I also thank all colleagues for their contributions. It has been very interesting to hear about the significant contribution that family businesses make not only to local economies but—and this is equally important—to local communities up and down the country. Some 85% of all businesses are family businesses, and if I were to give one challenge to the Government on growing the economy, it would be to recognise that it is absolutely vital that those family businesses grow, expand and become much bigger, such that they contribute not just locally but nationally. That is how we will grow our economy. There needs to be greater recognition of the importance of family businesses, and we need to ensure that they grow, expand and receive support.

Finally, I follow the Minister in wishing everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that 2023 will not be as exciting as 2022.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I also wish everyone a happy Christmas and a very peaceful new year.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the contribution of family businesses to local communities in the UK.

Home Energy Efficiency: North of England

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

It feels somewhat hot in here to me. If hon. Members wish to remove their jackets, that is perfectly in order.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered energy efficiency of homes in the north of England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am delighted to bring this debate to Westminster Hall. At the outset, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and of the all-party parliamentary group for housing market and housing delivery. I also place on the record my thanks to North Star Housing, the Conservative Environment Network, the Northern Housing Consortium and the National Housing Federation for their insightful and helpful engagement with me on this important issue in preparation for today’s debate.

Twenty-six per cent. of the north’s carbon emissions come from our homes—26%. If we are to tackle climate change and meet net zero, we have to do something about that 26%, in addition to all the other things that we are doing. Despite all the house building going on around the country, the UK’s housing stock is generally older than that across the rest of Europe. And in the north, we have a higher percentage of older properties than the rest of the country: 24% of all homes in the north were built before 1919, and 41% were built before 1944. These older homes are largely beautiful, characterful properties that provide us with the backdrop to much of our northern constituencies, but they pose serious issues when it comes to energy efficiency. Solid walls prevent the use of cavity insulation, and planning constraints require buildings to retain their character, making exterior work harder. That is alongside many other issues. Our Victorian terraces have proved particularly difficult to treat. However, we must find solutions to ensure that these homes are fit for the future. Future generations will thank us for our foresight in preserving these homes and doing our bit to save the planet.

The poor energy efficiency of homes in the north only serves to make our higher rates of fuel poverty even worse, compounding the problem. In my region, the north-east, we have the third highest levels of fuel poverty in England. Even before the price cap increased, 14% of households in Darlington and 15% in County Durham were classed as fuel-poor. Decarbonising homes and making them more energy efficient has the potential to offer part of the long-term solution to fuel poverty. Insulating homes better and reducing the reliance on fossil fuels to heat homes means less money spent on wasted energy, less money spent. It is a win-win for our homes, their residents and the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Gibson]

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister, and I thank him for his response to today’s debate. It has been a healthy debate. We heard some great speeches from my hon. Friend, neighbour and constituent the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), although I was disappointed to not actually hear the meat and drink of Labour’s plans to tackle the problem.

We had interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who gave me the great line that tacking this problem is a “win-win-win-win-win” situation. We also had a deeply political intervention from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who is no longer in her place.

It is clear that the Minister understands the challenges of our housing stock—the energy, retrofitting, disruption and lost income costs and the energy wastage—but also sees the benefits of warm homes, less leakage, improved health, skills and jobs that tackling this problem will bring. It was wonderful to hear the progress that has been made over the last 10 years, taking us from 14% to 46% of homes having an energy performance certificate of C or better, but let us accelerate that and make sure this is a win for the environment, homes, bill payers, jobs and skills.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered energy efficiency of homes in the north of England.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. The mover of the motion for the next debate is not here. I will give him a couple of minutes, but I will otherwise have to suspend the sitting until 4.30 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

1. What plans he has to support the development of the renewable energy sector.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

20. What steps he is taking to increase investment in renewable energy projects.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

In April, the Government published plans for accelerating renewable energy deployment in our British energy security strategy. Of course, that is very much at the centre of our strategy to ensure sustainability, affordability and security in the long term in our energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Member will know that issues relating to taxation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as the hon. Member’s windfall tax is concerned, I have always been opposed to such taxes on principle, and I continue to be opposed. I hope that this energy profits levy does not discourage investment; actually, it has features that do attract greater investment.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

T2. I am sure that Ministers will join me in congratulating a Royal Mail depot in my constituency that has moved its fleet to electric vehicles. However, that does place a lot of demand on the system, so will Ministers ensure that, when formulating policy, industrial estates, for example, have sufficient electricity to enable even more of them to change to electric vehicles?

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

I know of my hon. Friend’s ongoing interest in all matters in relation to energy, and he makes an important point about big energy users such as the Royal Mail planning and ensuring that they are efficient and robust for the future. I will ensure that his point on industrial estates is reflected back to our Department, to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and to other relevant Departments.

Treharris: Restoration of Post Office Services

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I will call Gerald Jones to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. In accordance with the convention for 30-minutes debates, I am afraid there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up at the end.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the restoration of Post Office services in Treharris.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I am pleased to have secured this important debate on behalf of residents in Treharris. Figures from Citizens Advice show that almost half of all adults visit a post office at least once a month. Sadly, that has not been the case for my constituents in Treharris, as three years ago this month the post office closed. The community of over 8,000 people has had no access to the post office services that were established in the village for decades.

I have previously raised this issue with the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who assured me that taxpayers’ money had been made available to Post Office Ltd. Despite that, Post Office Ltd has made no effort to restore a post office branch in Treharris, even though I understand that several parties have expressed interest in operating a service. Shamefully, the Post Office has left Treharris and many other communities across the UK in limbo, as it allows what was supposed to be a temporary branch closure to drag on indefinitely. Quite frankly, that is inexcusable.

I have been working closely with local councillors Gareth Richards, Ernie Galsworthy and Ian Thomas, and my Senedd colleague Dawn Bowden MS, all of whom have received representations from residents and businesses about the closure. Indeed, a petition launched less than six weeks ago has already secured almost 700 signatures from people who want a post office restored in Treharris, and it is not hard to understand why.

Until just a few years ago, Treharris was home to three major banks, all of which have now closed. The post office was a lifeline for residents and businesses. Treharris is still home to many businesses that have had to make alternative arrangements now, often at great inconvenience and cost. Glib suggestions by Post Office Ltd about using branches in Trelewis or Nelson fail to take account of issues such as low car ownership—around 30% of my constituents do not own a car—or the hour-long walk up steep hills to access the nearest post office. Public transport is sporadic, with a service once an hour at best. Long difficult walks and uncertain bus journeys—it appears Post Office Ltd has little understanding of the geography and topography of our area.

One local resident told me recently that they rely heavily on the post office service and budget their weekly bills using the cash they withdraw when they receive their pension. Over the past three years, they have had to make a weekly trip to Trelewis or Nelson to withdraw their pension, which involves taking half a day for a return bus journey and the added cost that entails. That is an unnecessary cost and an inconvenience that has a detrimental impact on many of my constituents.

In the three years since Treharris post office closed, there has been no attempt to provide mobile provision, and despite my office asking about that, no response has yet been given. Post Office Ltd’s own statement of principle says that it

“will provide an update to locally elected representatives if the status of the temporarily closed branch has not changed after 12 months.”

That did not happen.

Treharris is not alone in this situation; there is something very wrong with Britain’s post office network. Citizens Advice, the statutory consumer advocate for postal consumers, says in “Post: The state of the sector in 2022” that

“by September 2021, 1,291 post offices across Great Britain were temporarily closed, nearly twice as many as 5 years ago. And many ‘temporary’ closures last a significant period of time - more than 8 in 10 are shut for over a year. In reality many of these post offices are permanently closed.”

The report goes on to say that one rural post office in three in Great Britain is now provided as a part-time outreach service. Those post offices are open for an average of five and a half hours a week, although many are open for an hour—just one hour—a week.

I have some specific questions for the Minister. How can the Government allow so many post offices to be, essentially, permanently closed without the courtesy of consultation, discussion or debate with the communities they serve? How can it be that the Government provide money to Post Office Ltd to reopen branches, yet so many communities are left without a service?

As we have seen from the scandalous way in which Post Office Ltd treated its own sub-postmasters, its modus operandi is to keep quiet and hope that the problem goes away. I can assure you, Mr Robertson, and, more importantly, Post Office Ltd that the community of Treharris will not just sit silent. Treharris is a vibrant and viable community that is rapidly expanding owing to its proximity to Cardiff. There is, I believe, more than sufficient demand to sustain post office branches in Treharris, Trelewis and Nelson. The fact that Treharris does not have an operational post office when there is such strong local support is shocking.

On behalf of my constituents, I ask that the Government do all in their power to ensure that the service is restored to Treharris post office as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister will provide much needed answers to give the residents of Treharris the assurances that they seek and very much deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to increase the opportunities for generating electricity locally.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

We are providing support for the delivery of renewable energy projects within rural communities in England through the £10 million rural community energy fund programme.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that the production of electricity locally could help a great deal towards our net zero target? Will he also look at the situation in my constituency of Tewkesbury, where two rivers, the Avon and the Severn, join? The Severn would, I think, be particularly useful in producing electricity if we could get the schemes in place. Will he look at that and perhaps explore the possibilities?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend correctly observes that there are two major rivers in Tewkesbury, the Avon and the Severn—very beautiful rivers, I might add. As far as hydroelectric power on rivers is concerned, we would have to look at the hydraulics and the power that can be generated, but we clearly appreciate that there is potential there, and we want to explore any ideas that can bring those projects to fruition. Having said that, there is a limit to the capacity that such rivers can generate, unfortunately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the ONS data, but he will appreciate that that is comparing quarter 1 this year with quarter 1 last year. [Interruption.] Of course it does. January was exceptionally bad—I fully admit that—because there was uncertainty about how the new deal would operate. Subsequent data from Q2 and from March was much better, The next quarter will have better results, and I am sure that quarters after that will show proportionate improvement. The Australian trade deal is a fundamental issue for us. If we cannot make a trade deal with a country that has shared legislation, shared history, and shared traditions, we will not get anywhere with any of these trade deals. I think this is an excellent opportunity for the UK.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Government are to be congratulated on their plans to phase out diesel and petrol cars, but that raises the question of how we will charge electric cars, especially for those who do not have driveways and have to park on the roads. What can we do to speed up the development of the infrastructure?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Just yesterday, the energy regulator, Ofgem, announced that it has approved a £300 million investment to help triple the number of ultrarapid electric car charging points across the country. That will give a green light for energy network companies to invest in more than 200 low-carbon projects across the country over the next two years, including the installation of 1,800 new ultrarapid car charge points for motorway service stations, and a further 1,750 charge points in towns and cities.

UK Oil and Gas Industry

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Bowie]

I suspect it will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I could not agree more with what he said: we need Government investment to drive technology in relation to hydrogen. It is great to see Teesside following the north-east of Scotland in developing that technology.

As I was saying, to do any of what I have been describing, we need fiscal stability in the North sea. The North sea is at present one of the most attractive mature basins in the world in which to invest. That is largely because of the long-term and fiscally sensible approach that the Treasury has taken to the industry in recent years. With a Budget but days away, I urge the Government to avoid any abrupt action—any change in the tax regime—that would undermine investment in an industry that is not only embarking on its biggest and most challenging transition in history but still recovering from the shock of the downturn of 2014 to 2016.

We need the oil and gas industry to be a success. We need to maximise economic recovery and support the companies that are investing in our low-carbon future. We need to maintain a local supply chain, local capability and, ultimately, local jobs. The message from this Chamber and this Parliament, and, indeed, from Government, should be that we support the oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom—that it is an industry that we should champion and be proud of, that we understand, and will invest in and work with, as we ensure the North sea’s attractiveness to investors through the maintenance of a steady and sensible fiscal regime for many years to come. It is the industry and the sector from which will come the talent, the ideas and the investment in technologies that are key to addressing the real issues of our age. It is up to us as legislators to support it.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

It may help Members if I say that I want to call the first Front-Bench speaker just before 10.30 and to leave two minutes for Mr Bowie to wind up at the end.

HELMS and the Green Deal

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. I should like to leave a couple of minutes at the end of the debate for the mover of the motion.

Wylfa Nuclear Power Project: Taxpayer Liability for Safety

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Claire Perry]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s desire for transparency, but obviously I cannot do that, because doing so would prejudice negotiations that are ongoing. He will know, based on his long experience, that there is an interplay of costs, of contracts for difference numbers, and of potential asks from the UK Government and from shareholders, and these negotiations are long and complicated.

Part of the challenge, if you like, with large-scale nuclear is that a very large, up-front cost is associated with it; it is a very capital-intensive investment, although one that we want to make for the reasons I have mentioned. However, the conversation that we had earlier was about small modular reactors, which require less up-front investment, have more flexibility and allow us to invest in multiple sites, which are reasons why such reactors are so attractive; they allow us to spread those up-front costs much more widely.

In conclusion, this debate has been a very good opportunity to emphasise again the value of nuclear in our energy mix; to reassure people in this House and elsewhere that the UK Government will not make energy policy based on ideology but will soberly assess the cost, the innovation, the carbon and the security as we go forward; to celebrate the fact that we have one of the most robust nuclear safety regimes in the world, including world-leading independent regulation; to note the fact that people are hungry to see the details of the Wylfa deal and I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is of course conducting those negotiations on our behalf, is aware of that; and, essentially, to reassure the House and others that—as is the case with all other nuclear generation in the UK—Wylfa will be a safe source of energy and one that minimises any form of liability being borne by the taxpayer.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I call Alan Brown to wind up.

Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My experience gives me confidence that the evidence and the facts will ultimately determine the outcome of the negotiations; respect for the facts on both sides of the negotiations will be what determines a solution in the interests of both sides. That is what I am determined to pursue. When companies offer evidence, as others are completely free to do, it should be considered in a serious and sober way, and used to inform those discussions.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The aerospace industry is important to my Tewkesbury constituency. Did the Secretary of State notice, on the day of the announcement, that American company GE Aviation announced that it was going to rebuild its propeller business, which supplies a significant proportion of the world’s propellers, in my constituency of Tewkesbury, here in the United Kingdom? Is that not a vote of confidence in what we are doing?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) pointed out earlier that companies invest here because it is a good place to invest. My hon. Friend’s constituency and the area around it have proved successful because there is a critical mass—a cluster—of related firms. It is important that we do everything we can to ensure that we maintain and add to the strength of that cluster, and I am absolutely determined to do so.