Energy Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ian Swales

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I welcome this Energy Bill and will speak about the provisions dealing with carbon capture and storage. I pleased to see this exciting new technology incorporated in the Bill, but clause 41, entitled “Interpretation of Chapter 8”, defines CCS technology as

“technology for…capturing carbon dioxide…that has been produced by, or in connection with, generation of electricity on a commercial scale…transporting such carbon dioxide”

and

“disposing of such carbon dioxide…by way of permanent storage”.

I am concerned that this definition is too narrow to cover the benefits deliverable from emerging CCS projects. There is the obvious one—where all or part of the energy is delivered as heat rather than electricity—but I am more concerned to ensure that industrial carbon capture and storage is covered too. I know that the Bill is targeted at generation and the market, but I do not expect that there will be another Bill to cover wider aspects of energy and CCS, so I feel that the relevant clauses must be properly structured.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that the Government have made a savage 80% cut in investment in CCS?

[Ian Swales]

As far as I am aware, the £1 billion that was promised for CCS is still on the table. I am not sure where that 80% figure comes from, although I would be disappointed if what the hon. Lady said was true. [Interruption.] I hope the Minister will respond to that later.

Finance Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ian Swales

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

I understand that charities have an issue with VAT, and I understand that Save the Children is right in its analysis. I am talking about the effect on personal spending.

The concept of a progressive spending tax is well understood across Europe. New clause 6 would take VAT in the UK back to a level where, among EU countries, only Cyprus and Luxembourg would have a lower rate. We have not heard from the Opposition parties how they plan to finance the cut in VAT.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman think of any other way in which people who can afford a Ferrari could contribute to the tax system?

[Ian Swales]

Well, £4,000 extra VAT is obviously one way that they are contributing as a result of this Government’s policies.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said in the previous debate that the important focus of the tax and benefit system is on need and alleviation of poverty. I believe that VAT increases, which impact on the wealthy more than on the poor, are a good way of doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

The whole point of an active Government who take an interest in re-igniting the economy was absolutely that—to create jobs and ensure wealth creation so that we would be in a better position to pay back quickly—

[Ian Swales]

Can the hon. Lady confirm that she is now proposing a cut in VAT and car scrappage schemes and other measures to stimulate the economy? Or is she offering a choice?

[Nia Griffith]

I am asking about the Government’s growth strategies. I am trying to explain by giving some examples of how Governments can stimulate the economy and make a difference. They can choose to kick-start the economy or to allow it to go spiralling down and unemployment to increase. These are active choices that a Government can make. We are asking in our new clause for a proper assessment of the effect of the increase in VAT on what is happening now in the economy.