Fisheries Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Sweeney]

I beg to move amendment 77, in schedule 6, page 45, line 43, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

We tabled the amendment because the schedule allows for the transfer of powers to Scottish Ministers and the power to make provisions on issues such as aquatic and animal diseases. The schedule will allow Scottish Ministers to make provisions for

“the purpose of monitoring, controlling, preventing or eradicating diseases of fish or other aquatic animals…in particular…provision regulating the importation, exportation, movement, storage or handling of…fish or other aquatic animals…products derived from fish or other aquatic animals…any other thing that the Scottish Ministers consider may carry, or otherwise affect the prevalence of, a disease of fish or other aquatic animals.”

We want to change that to an affirmative procedure because it will be a much better way of doing things.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The amendment is a step too far. There is sufficient protection for affirmative resolutions under clause 36 and paragraph 3(2) of the schedule, as the Minister pointed out. The Scottish Government need some leeway to be able to use the negative resolution procedure, and I do not think there is any need for this amendment. I would like to know whether the Labour party sought any assurances from the Scottish Government on whether they thought this amendment was necessary. I suggest that if the Scottish Government had wanted such an amendment, they would have tabled it themselves.

[George Eustice]

This is in many ways a mirror amendment to one we discussed earlier. It is unusual for me to agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, but he makes an important point: if we have just agreed one set of provisions giving the right to use the affirmative or negative resolution for England, it would suggest that we do not trust Scotland if we said that all their resolutions should be subject to the affirmative procedure. What is good for one part of the UK should be good for Scotland as well. I do not think this amendment is appropriate.

I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that this has been put in at the request of the Scottish Government. We worked closely with all the devolved Administrations to understand what they would like included in the Bill on their behalf, and this particular section dealing with the ability to fight aquatic diseases is understandably very important to Scotland, given that it has such a large salmon farming industry. It is at the request of the Scottish Government that this has been included in the way that it has. I think it is right that we treat the Scottish provisions in the same way that we treat the English provisions. I hope the shadow Front Bench will not see the need to press this particular amendment.

[Mr Sweeney]

We have been pretty consistent throughout the process in saying that we think affirmative measures are better because they provide extra scrutiny and extra control, and we think that is beneficial.

[Alan Brown]

On that point, given that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues consistently say that the Scottish Labour is the party of devolution, does he agree that if Labour is the party of devolution, it should respect devolution rather than trying to make legislation here that the Scottish Government have not asked for?

Fisheries Bill (Tenth_PART2 sitting)

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Committee Debate: 10th sitting (part 2): House of Commons
Monday 17th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I bet you are delighted to be here in the final sitting tonight; the rest of the House has probably adjourned.

The new clause would ensure that the vital contribution that is made by the current European Maritime and Fisheries Fund to support sustainable growth in Scottish fisheries and aquaculture, inland waters, the seafood supply chain, conservation of the marine environment, and growth in jobs in coastal communities will be maintained in the future.

However, I must also add that the UK Government should be doing more to assess future opportunities such as rejuvenating coastal communities, and identify where infrastructure and subsequent funding might be required to maximise those opportunities. That would result in a bottom-up and needs-based approach that would lead to the establishment of a proper fund and the associated long-term planning. If we are to achieve the nirvana of catching more fish, landing them in Scottish and UK ports and processing them, further investment will clearly be required. The replacement EMFF would be an ideal vehicle for investment leverage.

Devolution is key here. We cannot possibly allow a repeat of DEFRA stealing the £160 million convergence uplift that is due to Scottish farmers—a redistribution that could have significant effects on future funding to farmers once historical payments are taken into account under any new UK scheme. Scotland currently receives 44% of EMFF moneys; that is obviously way higher than the pro rata figure per head of population, but it makes sense given the demographics of the fishing industry. I must put it on the record that there is no way we would ever countenance any future funding being allocated on a Barnett basis.

The situation appears even more stark when we look at the 2017 industry figures: 55% of employment in the sector overall, 58% of fishing industry employment and 75% of aquaculture industry employment are in Scotland. Scotland also accounts for 50% of fish processing, 67% of landings in the over-10-metre sector and 32% of landings in the under-10-metre sector. In a devolved context, it therefore makes sense that post Brexit, as an absolute minimum, the same allocation be made to the Scottish Government in the interest of effective distribution. Indeed, from the statistics I have cited, there is a clear case that Scotland should have further funding. I certainly would not want to see that happen to the detriment of other communities in the UK, but at the very minimum we should receive the equivalent of what we get now.

[Mr Sweeney]

I support new clause 2, which is a frankly common-sense measure. It is imperative that, as a result of the UK leaving the European Union, the industry must have both the certainty and the financial underpinning that it requires. The new clause would ensure that, so surely it must appeal to Government Members who want to provide such certainty. I appeal particularly to Scottish Conservatives present, who surely want to uphold the interests of Scottish fisheries. Here is a real test of whether they are part of Team Ruth or Team May: will they uphold the interests of the Scottish fisheries?

The removal of the EMFF presents a significant challenge across industry in Scotland. My own experience—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

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

I will try to brief. The new clause would effectively devolve control of the Scottish aspect of levies imposed by Seafish to Scottish Ministers, ensuring that levies imposed on fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or trans-shipped in Scottish waters, require confirmation by Scottish Ministers. It would also mean that Scottish Ministers may, by order, increase the rate of such levies.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute touched on, it is a long-held view of the Scottish Government that the existing Seafish levy is not fit for purpose, providing inadequate support to the sector in Scotland, resulting in insufficient marketing and promotion of Scottish seafood. Levies should not be uniform across the UK and should be placed in the hands of devolved Ministers to determine best procedure and practice in their own nations and regions. This issue is similar to the red meat levy, which was also a long-running sore. The UK Government accepted changes to the Agriculture Bill to resolve that to the satisfaction of the Scottish Government. I hope the Minister will see fit to do likewise with these proposals.

[Mr Sweeney]

I support new clause 3, which seeks to devolve control of the Scottish aspects of levies imposed by Seafish to Scottish Ministers. Inter alia, it would require confirmation from Scottish Ministers for levies imposed in relation to fish or fish products landed in Scotland, or transhipped in Scottish waters, and allow Scottish Ministers to increase the rate of such levies by order.

It seems that the new clause makes sense and would allow Scottish Ministers to determine the rate of levy that best suits the industry in Scotland. The purpose of devolution is to allow for degrees of variance to best suit that country’s interests, and the new clause achieves that. We will support it.

Fisheries Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Sweeney]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Gray. I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and this very well thought through amendment, because it ties in exactly with the coherent position that Labour has had on industrial strategy, which is about maximising the prosperity agenda for the United Kingdom.

We look at vertical integration of the industry. We have to look at the source of fishing, at sea, but also at how the supply chain operates and maximising the industrial benefit for the United Kingdom. That is not simply about the fish processing side; it aims at rejuvenating the whole UK port infrastructure, including boat and ship repair, and shipbuilding, and the associated industries that would benefit from having a tie to particular ports. Smaller ports such as those on the west coast of Scotland have suffered decline, and we can see an opportunity, through the tying of catches to UK ports, to create demand in those ports, generating new activity and industrial growth. That would be a huge benefit for the highlands and islands particularly. They have had significant economic challenges because of their isolation. That needs a focused effort.

[Alan Brown]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the amendment and new clause would rejuvenate ports in the highlands and islands? I do not see the direct link. The point was made earlier that additional landings coming to the UK might still just go through existing big ports.

[Mr Sweeney]

They would create a framework within which those opportunities could be generated by devolved Administrations. The Scottish Government could augment that. The amendment and new clause would create a fundamental framework that would drive demand into UK ports. That is the opportunity, which would be an important baseline measure in the Bill, and could be developed. We had an interesting debate yesterday on the centenary of the Iolaire disaster, and one of the conclusions was that highland and island communities suffer significant isolation, and that it is important that their distinctive economic and social needs should be met by Parliament. The amendment and new clause would benefit them a great deal.

Fisheries Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Thursday 13th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.

Our view in the Labour party is that the Scottish Government, and therefore Scottish Ministers, do not currently have the competence to exercise powers to determine fisheries opportunities and, as such, the consent of Scottish Ministers is not a requirement. As per the devolution settlement, the opportunity to determine fisheries opportunities currently rests with the European Council. That will be transposed to UK Ministers when we leave the European Union. It is therefore the case that any provision requiring the UK Minister to seek the consent of Scottish Ministers in advance of the determination would in essence act as a potential veto on the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom�s ability to determine fisheries opportunities across the United Kingdom common fisheries area.

We have seen throughout the process of Brexit and the subsequent required legislation, such as the Trade Bill, the Agriculture Bill and now the Fisheries Bill, that the Scottish National party wish to extend the powers afforded to Scottish Ministers and what decisions require their consent. I disagree wholeheartedly with that approach, as it is not in line with the devolution settlements, including the 1998 Act, which would have been voted on previously. If SNP Members were to address this issue through the proper channels by trying to amend the devolution settlements prima facie, rather than by trying to do it by the back door, that would be a more acceptable approach.

[Alan Brown]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute pointed out, the way the Scotland Act was originally set up, if matters are not listed as reserved, they are devolved. Surely it follows that the repatriation of powers from Europe to the UK should follow that devolution settlement and go to the rightful Parliament.

[Mr Sweeney]

Of course, the complexity lies in the interface with international obligations. The Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that,

�If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that any action proposed to be taken by a member of the Scottish Government would be incompatible with any international obligations, he may by order direct that the proposed action shall not be taken.�

That shows a clear inconsistency with the Scotland Act.

That is corroborated by the Law Society of Scotland, which states:

�We welcome the duties of the Secretary of State set out under Clause 19 when making a determination under clause 18. The provisions require the Secretary of State to consult with devolved administrations and the Marine Management Organisation before making or withdrawing a determination. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to publish a notice of a determination after it being made or withdrawn, lay a copy of the notice in Parliament, and send a copy to the devolved administrations. This will assist in terms of ensuring clarity and accountability.�

Of course, if our amendment had been upheld with regard to the dispute resolution mechanism, that would have been a far more sustainable way to have resolved any disputes, rather than leading to an inevitable impasse and total logjam in the processing of a common fisheries area in the UK.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman talks about logjams and he mentioned the other Bills on which the Scottish Government are withholding a legislative consent motion. Is he saying that the Scottish Government should just acquiesce to Westminster and not defend the rights of the Scottish Government?

[Mr Sweeney]

That is a rather unfortunate characterisation of the situation. We want to have a consensual approach where arbitration is done in a sustainable way, not political opportunism leading to an impasse in the economic progress of this country.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman�s own party voted with the SNP and other parties against the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Scottish Government withholding legislative consent in some of these cases is actually in line with cross-party support in Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I am happy to support this excellent amendment, because it seeks to ensure that in the distribution of fishing opportunities, Scottish Ministers, along with Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department�we hope, soon, a Northern Ireland Executive will be restored�would be recognised as �relevant national authorities�, alongside the Secretary of State and the Marine Management Organisation. The Labour party believes such an approach to be fair. It would ensure parity between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State.

In good faith, I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. A failure to do so would show that the UK Government are not at all committed to ensuring that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are equal partners in our Union of nations. The amendment is therefore critical.

[Alan Brown]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Parliament initially was happy not to be included in the clause, because the Scottish Government have worked with the UK Government on that basis?

[Mr Sweeney]

It seems that we are in violent agreement on some things�we cannot do wrong for doing right, can we? Interestingly, I think that adding the amendment to the Bill would define the process and make it clear. That is why we also supported a clear dispute resolution mechanism being in the Bill. That, too, would have provided a clear, unequivocal process that would have allowed us to resolve these problems with the different partners in the UK. I have to say that I was rather disappointed that the SNP abstained on that amendment, but we are where we are. I think this is a worthwhile measure and it will be helpful for us to proceed on this basis. I urge the Minister, in good faith, to support it to bind our Union together even more.

Fisheries Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Sweeney]

Technically, yes. Perhaps I am moonlighting as a Front Bencher. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

I rise in support of this amendment. It reflects that devolution is a process, rather than an event, and if I were to do a risk profile of the Bill, this omission by the Government would be a red flag. It is important that this is addressed as a matter of urgency; it is critical, because as we have seen at instances throughout the discussions about the EU withdrawal process, impasses occur quite frequently between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government about how to proceed and how best to resolve issues. It is clear that in fisheries, there is a high risk of those issues emerging, so as a matter of prudence it is incumbent on the Government to make provision for issues to be resolved through a system and process defined in the Bill.

[Alan Brown]

I rise to ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I put to the shadow Minister: how does he see this mechanism being set up? If it is set up with the Secretary of State, how does he see it as being a panacea that will resolve any dispute if it does not have the input of the Administrations?

[Mr Sweeney]

I think it should be an inclusive process; I am not prescribing any particular definition for that, but I do not think the Secretary of State should have untrammelled power over the ultimate decisions. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland suggested, it should be something that is equitable and democratic in nature. That would be the way to proceed.

Fisheries Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q I would like to ask about the legal implications of potentially redistributing quotas. What do you envisage the complexities of that might be? How can we address them as part of the process? What is your take on monopolistic activity in the fishing industry?

Rebecca Newsom: Greenpeace has taken independent legal advice on the issue. The conclusion was that, from a legal perspective, the Government and any other relevant national authorities can feel very confident in proceeding with this new approach to quota distribution. The prospects of a successful judicial review are very low, and the reasons for that are twofold. First, in the Brexit process, the proposed amendment is being put into a new Westminster Act of Parliament. As such, after we leave the EU, Parliament will be supreme and the law will have superiority to case law. Secondly, the 2012 legal case discussed on Tuesday concluded that while there may be some property rights attached to fixed quota allocations, those are not applicable if the quota has not been used. In any case, it is within the power of the Secretary of State to allocate as they see fit. Taken together, our conclusion is that such a measure would be clearly compatible with national and international law.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Q Good morning, everybody. We have not discussed the fact that the Bill includes a proposal for a discard prevention scheme. Do you have a view as to whether the measures are transparent enough? What are the risks of doing that? Is it the right approach to avoiding discards?

Helen McLachlan: Discards are a major issue and we welcome the continued commitment to trying to minimise discards overall. Our view on the measures in the Bill is that it is not quite clear what consequences or unintended consequences might arise. We would like to see more effort being placed on being clear about what it is we are taking out of the water and how much we really do need to discard. Going back to electronic monitoring at sea, we need to get a clear case. What we are concerned about at the end of the day is what we are removing from our ocean systems and how we can account for that sustainably. I think we would like to see more focus on that, rather than penalties per se, particularly as we are not quite clear on the intended or unintended consequences at this point.

Debbie Crockard: Especially because the original intention of the landing obligation was to improve selectivity, to make fishing more sustainable and to reduce waste. If there are uncertainties and things that are not clear within the Bill, we need to ensure that the legislation is still trying to meet those initial intentions.

Wylfa Nuclear Power Project: Taxpayer Liability for Safety

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown]

Clearly, we can both tear apart quotes, but the bottom line is that that is what the then chief executive of National Grid said. I was just going to come on to a quote from Dr Mark Diesendorf, of the University of New South Wales, in Australia. He stated that the assumption is

“that nuclear power is a reliable baseload supplier. In fact it’s no such thing. All nuclear power stations are subject to tripping out for safety reasons or technical faults. That means that a 3.2GW nuclear power station has to be matched by 3.2GW of expensive ‘spinning reserve’ that can be called in at a moment’s notice.”

He further states:

“The assumption that baseload power stations are necessary to provide a reliable supply of grid electricity has been disproven by both practical experience in electricity grids with high contributions from renewable energy, and by hourly computer simulations.”

Therefore, the argument that Wylfa and other stations are required to supply baseload is flawed.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the point about baseload, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the whole point of managing a baseload with nuclear power stations and reactors is that they are organised to be taken offline in a scheduled programme of maintenance? In the case of Torness, it almost broke the world record for a continuous run of 495 days before being taken offline. Surely that is a huge achievement for engineers in Scotland?

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman tried to worm in a compliment to engineers in Scotland at the end of his intervention. Of course I welcome the skills of engineers, including nuclear engineers—I have no doubt that the guys doing that work are highly skilled engineers. I still do not agree with the concept that the baseload is required from nuclear. If we think about Hinkley power station, we were originally told that, because of the baseload required, if it was not commissioned by December 2017, the lights would go out. We are way beyond that deadline, since Hinkley will not come on stream until closer to the end of this decade, and we are still managing our electricity supplies. There are ways to manage baseload through alternate supplies, which I will come on to.

The only other reasoning I can see for this headlong rush into more nuclear is the equally outdated concept of the UK being a world leader in a particular sector, but that will come about because of other countries pulling out of the nuclear sector. The US is not building new nuclear, Japan has changed tack and Germany has pledged to phase out new nuclear. It seems that the UK will be a world leader in propping up the nuclear sector for other countries. In a recent Westminster Hall debate on the nuclear sector deal, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) stated that we should not be reliant on foreign countries for our energy, but with these new nuclear proposals, including Wylfa, that is exactly what we will still be: reliant on foreign countries for their expertise, knowledge and supply of goods.

I suggest that the UK might be the world leader in bad nuclear deals. Returning to Hinkley, we have a 35-year agreement at a strike rate of £92.50 per MWh, when offshore wind recently came in at a strike rate of £57.50 per MWh, and that £57.50 is only for a 15-year tenure. The Hinkley deal is so bad that it was criticised by the NAO as bad value for money. Part of the problem with Hinkley was the risk and the financial exposure to private investors, allied with the fact that the technology for the EPR, or European pressurised reactor, has still to be proven, with all existing EPR projects under construction still facing delays and cost overruns.

As investment in nuclear around the world falls, the UK has planning for 11 reactors on the go and two reactors under construction at Hinkley. In its latest report, released recently, the National Infrastructure Commission states that there should be a maximum of just one new nuclear contract signed before 2025 because of the reduced costs of renewables and the other emerging technologies, including the massive decrease in the cost of batteries. Its report also illustrates that, over the years, the cost of nuclear has not decreased, debunking another UK Government aspiration that continually commissioning new nuclear such as Wylfa will somehow reduce costs. Has the Minister assessed those comments, and will the Government provide a response to the report in due course?

Wylfa is also a different technology from Hinkley, and other proposed sites have yet further different technologies. It therefore stands to reason that, when employing those different technologies, the inherent price will not be brought down, because we will not benefit from repeat constructions and using the skills gained during one project on another. There will also be site-specific constraints and considerations.

This backdrop brings us directly back to the Wylfa proposals. Getting direct information from the Government remains difficult due to their claims of commercial confidentiality. However, the private developer, Hitachi, has clearly had difficulties with the costs and risks associated with the project, which has led to the suggestion of the Government taking a direct £5 billion stake. In principle, a direct Government stake in key infrastructure projects makes sense, as they can borrow more cheaply than private investors. However, in this case, it seems to be part of another, wider blank cheque-type agreement, with the Government desperate to get the project moving.

It is not only me using the blank cheque analogy. Will Gardiner, chief executive officer of Drax Group, said:

“I am not a fan of sweetheart deals, the government sitting down with Hitachi and writing them a cheque. That’s not good economics”.

On the economics, we have heard reported strike rate figures of £77.50 per megawatt-hour quoted for Wylfa. That reduced rate, compared with Hinkley’s, is on the back of the £5 billion stake. While the Government are trying to keep information under wraps, managing to learn anything is still a bit of a smoke-and-mirrors game.

Under the Paris and Brussels conventions, a nuclear operator is liable for any nuclear incidents. However, that liability is capped at €1.2 billion, which is way below the cost of a catastrophic incident—the Fukushima incident ran into the hundreds of billions of pounds—so the cap is arguably too low. Hitachi has already had two serious safety breaches in other nuclear developments, and was fined $2.7 million by the US Government for one of them. Apparently learning from that, Hitachi is resisting taking on liability for nuclear incidents at Wylfa. We do not know its exact proposal, but it marks a departure from current agreements, where the operator should be responsible for health and safety and attendant risks and liabilities.

The Times reports that Hitachi “won’t pay” for nuclear accidents at Wylfa, based on Nikkei reports that some of Hitachi’s directors wanted

“safeguards that reduce or eliminate Hitachi’s financial responsibility for accidents at the plant”.

It also marks a departure from the “polluter pays” principle. It is critical that the UK Government do not sign up to any such crazy proposals. I hope the Minister provides real clarity on this matter and does not hide behind commercial confidentiality.

We know the Prime Minister hit the pause button for Hinkley Point C to allow for a cost review. Despite that review, she somehow then caved in and accepted what the National Audit Office has subsequently confirmed is a bad deal. Why do the Government appear to be pulling out all the stops again to get Wylfa over the finishing line—by which I mean the agreeing of the contract? We know full well that the project will invariably end up over budget and delayed, just like every other ongoing nuclear project in the world.

Another argument in favour of Wylfa and other nuclear projects is the jobs they will create. I agree that these high-skilled jobs are vital for the localities with existing power stations, and I understand Members lobbying to maintain—or to create further—high-skilled jobs. However, those jobs should not come at any cost. Indeed, paragraph 23 of the Welsh Affairs Committee’s July 2016 report, “The Future of nuclear power in Wales”, explicitly states:

“We recommend that the Government negotiate a strike price for Wylfa Newydd below that agreed for Hinkley Point C and seek a price that would be competitive with renewable sources, such as on-shore wind. The Government should not continue with the project if the price is too high.”

It seems, based on that recommendation, that the Committee must by default be against this project continuing, as it clearly cannot be competitive compared with onshore wind. Has the Minister consulted the Committee on the recent developments in the likely cost of Wylfa?

I would not want to see job losses anywhere. I represent a deindustrialised constituency. Over the years, we have lost coal mining and many different manufacturing jobs. However, we can spend money more wisely to create jobs. Wylfa will cost up to £20 billion. The new nuclear legacy programme will cost circa £100 billion, and we have spent nearly £120 billion in decommissioning costs. Departing from civil nuclear projects, the successor programme to replace the Trident submarines will have whole-life costs of more than £200 billion, with future decommissioning costing up to £250 billion.

Those are astronomical sums of money, and we should be able to think how to spend them more wisely. We could have proper infrastructure investment and a targeted jobs and manufacturing strategy that would create more jobs and a more balanced economy, and we will not have the toxic legacy of nuclear. By the time Hinkley and Wylfa are constructed, with their anticipated 6 GW capacity, we could build something like 20 GW of offshore wind capacity. We know that the costs of batteries are plummeting, and renewable costs have also plummeted.

We should invest in carbon capture and storage. I welcome the Government’s latest report on CCS, but we should never have pulled the previous £1 billion allocation. How ridiculously small does that £1 billion seem compared with the costs of nuclear I have outlined? CCS will also allow for the decarbonisation of gas and biomass electricity generation and will open up the potential for a supply of zero-carbon fuel, in the form of hydrogen. However, each massive undertaking for nuclear is to the detriment of investment in renewables. When the Government give undertakings and risk guarantees for Wylfa, they reduce their scope to make similar guarantees for emerging technologies.

On jobs not coming at any cost, we also have to appreciate the potential health risks. As outlined by Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity, the risks of leukaemia in nuclear workers are double those found in a 2005 study, and there is

“strong evidence of a dose-response relationship between cumulative, external, chronic, low-dose, exposures to radiation and leukaemia”.

He also states:

“When nuclear reactors are refueled, a 12-hour spike in radioactive emissions exposes local people to levels of radioactivity up to 500 times greater than during normal operation”.

He states in his blog that the research behind these findings is “impeccable”, as it was based on

“a huge study of over 300,000 nuclear workers adding up to over 8 million person years, thus ensuring its findings are statistically significant”.

I suggest we pay heed to such research.

As I have said, the cost legacy is bad enough, and we still do not have a solution to the long-term disposal of nuclear waste, so it is absolute folly to sign a deal in which the taxpayer takes on unlimited risk for a nuclear incident. This could prove to be the worst deal yet unless the Government change tack soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. We have to think about this outside of these silos of energy generation. Although we want to decarbonise electricity in the UK, which is a laudable and vital aspiration, if we are to tackle the problem of climate change, it is critical that we recognise that nuclear has to be part of that mix.

Renewables, although we hope that they will eventually substitute all energy generation in the UK, are simply not mature enough, in terms of their reliability, to deliver output that is secure enough. The variability of wind is proving to be problematic. July’s wind energy is 40% lower compared with the same period last year. That is simply not sustainable enough for us to generate reliable energy sources in the UK. We have to look at other technologies, and nuclear presents an opportunity. We are not talking about rebuilding advanced gas-cooled reactors, which was a technology developed in the 1960s—it was advanced for the time, but is simply obsolete today. We are not talking about rebuilding that, with all the legacies of toxicity and problems with waste disposal that were mentioned, although I have to say that the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet in the UK is a global benchmark for safety. I do not think there are any substantial risks associated with the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet—it has had a tremendous safety record in the UK, which is a great triumph of British engineering.

We have to approach this with an industrial strategy; that is where we have to grip this. We are talking about shipbuilding and energy generation. All of those things can be linked to deliver a huge industrial and economic benefit for the UK.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about emerging technologies—if new nuclear is an emerging technology. I presume he would welcome investment in carbon capture and storage in Scotland, and investment in tidal. The Scottish Government are not saying no to nuclear and no to new technologies; they are going to welcome wider technologies that are completely renewable and that do not have the potential toxic legacy of nuclear.

[Mr Sweeney]

That is an entirely legitimate point to make. We want to push on all fronts. We want Britain to be leading the world on all fronts. That requires investment in battery technology, where we have a huge disruptive opportunity. Let us push on that front. Let us push on carbon capture and storage. Again, the problem is that we have no rigorous industrial strategy. When I worked at Scottish Enterprise, for example, we watched Longannet drop off a cliff, with no plan for its succession and how it would be managed. As a result of that, we saw the collapse of Hunterston ore terminal in Ayrshire, which has now lost all its customers, because it was the input point for the transportation of coal to the power station.

[Alan Brown]

Longannet collapsed because it was no longer economically viable, due to the amount Longannet had to pay to connect to the grid, which is all based on distance from the population of London. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, therefore, that that is a UK Government failure, not a Scottish Government failure?

[Mr Sweeney]

The issue was a joint problem because we did not embrace the possibility of carbon capture and storage at Longannet. Nor, as the hon. Gentleman mentions, did we address the calculation system and the price charged for generation at Longannet—we have to address this issue on all fronts. Longannet was a failure because, ultimately, the jobs and industrial benefits were lost. As a result, we now have a large brownfield site that will cost a lot of money to clear up, for want of a proper succession plan and a proper strategy.

I urge all Governments to get a grip. I do not lay the blame on any one of them. I am describing the reality that faces the community and our country now, and it is about time we gripped it. I urge people to get together to sort it out. We have a lack of strategy in dealing with succession planning when it comes to closing down our nuclear fleet and also our conventional coal-fired fleet, so we have to address that. We must have a strategy. We have the opportunity.

Emerging technologies, such as the integral fast reactor, which is under development, will address the waste problem in nuclear. As Professor David MacKay, the chief scientist at the former Department of Energy and Climate Change, said, the reactor could supply all the UK’s energy needs for 500 years by consuming the UK’s existing stockpile of waste. That also addresses the decommissioning of the nuclear submarine fleet and the nuclear weapons at Aldermaston. It is a huge cycle that we have to address, and currently we are not gripping it.

We have a huge opportunity to embrace these technologies and use them as a basis for Britain to re-establish a global leadership position in civil nuclear energy that addresses the huge legacy of problems that we have had with nuclear. This is not about saying we can write nuclear off because the technology developed in the 1960s was flawed; it is about saying we are where we are and there are opportunities to utilise nuclear not only to deliver a low-carbon generation capability, but to address toxic waste issues. It is about developing, regenerating and manufacturing an advanced engineering base.

That is why I urge everyone to be open-minded when approaching the issue of new nuclear technologies in the UK and to look at new technologies that can benefit the Scottish and UK economies. That is how we and the trade unions are approaching it, and it is an entirely legitimate and open-minded approach. I am dismayed that the SNP will unconditionally block any potential exploitation of the opportunity in Scotland at Torness or Hunterston. That is a great tragedy for Scotland, a nation that has done so much to be a world leader in civil nuclear technology. I hope the SNP might look at those technologies and change their minds.

British Transport Police/ Police Scotland Merger

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown]

I cannot just now. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East spoke of an automatic dilution of skills. That is not a logical conclusion. If a railway division is retained in the new set-up, there should not be a dilution of skills. In fact, it is a way to enhance skills and opportunities within Police Scotland.

[Mr Sweeney]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Alan Brown]

No; I will see if I have time near the end of my speech.

We are debating an important matter, which the Scottish Government are trying to deal with. It is clear that there are concerns within the Scottish division of the British Transport police about the proposals, and the claim that there are concerns among staff members cannot be refuted. We have to take the concerns seriously, given that we are talking about valued police officers who provide vital services, keeping us safe. Staff morale and welfare in relation to stress or concerns is of utmost priority. I think that that is what led to the current pause. However, even when those factors are taken into account, they do not justify the complete policy U-turn that most Members of other parties have called for.

Scottish City Deals

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was timely because I am just about to address the question of municipalism in Scotland—a great tradition that is sadly diminished.

To achieve those recommendations by the Fraser of Allander Institute, we need substantially greater powers to act at municipal level, which the Glasgow city deal shows are sorely lacking. It is fair to say that Glasgow has been progressively smothered by the process of devolution in the past 20 years. Edinburgh holds too much power. It sucks up power from other parts of the country, including Glasgow. The SNP has only exacerbated the problem by drastically cutting funding to local government at twice the rate the Scottish budget has been reduced. Rebranding the city council as a city government is just dressing mutton up as lamb, because without any substantive changes to Glasgow’s real political power it is nothing more than changing the letterhead on the city council stationery. We need to appraise honestly how devolution can better support our great cities towards more responsive, representative government, rather than increasingly concentrating power in Edinburgh.

The north of England has been invigorated by a multimillion pound investment and innovative development through its city deals. Historically Britain’s second city, Glasgow is now at risk of losing out in terms of power and investment compared with other big, regional cities in the UK. City regions such as Manchester and Liverpool have made great gains in funding, voice and influence in recent years, including through the introduction of directly elected metro mayoralties. That greater devolution of power is to be celebrated, and Glasgow, which is bigger than each of those cities in northern England, needs to learn from the recent experience of cities such as Manchester to bring more power and investment to our great city. We need to ensure that Glasgow, as one of the greatest cities in the world, and once the fourth-largest city in Europe, has a greater and distinctive voice within the UK. We should be exploring all avenues for how we increase our political clout to improve the lives of Glaswegians.

The city deal appears to be a temporary fix to underlying structural issues for funding the Glasgow city region, which over recent decades has been both ravaged by a decade of SNP cuts and undermined by the Tory break-up of what it saw as a troublesome Labour-led Strathclyde regional council in the 1990s. I hope that the debate will force the Government to provide much-needed clarity on the future progress of the longest-standing Scottish city deal, the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city region deal.

The UK Government need to be proactive in pushing for progress while putting pressure on the SNP Government in Holyrood to deliver their commitments. As has been mentioned in interventions, we need to establish unity of purpose to ensure that the right projects are prioritised so that Glasgow finally gets the vital, world-class infrastructure it needs to thrive as a global destination in the 21st century, without further delay and procrastination. The current deal clearly shows that we cannot trust the UK Government to deliver on their financial commitments, we cannot trust the Scotland Office to show leadership, and we cannot trust the Scottish Government to implement their commitments properly.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Is that not proof that the deal was not fully thought- through by the UK Government at the start? Instead, it was a pre-referendum bribe, with them throwing out the money without laying out what the outcomes were going to be.

[Mr Sweeney]

I do not accept that it was done in that manner, cynically put as it was. I think it was put together with the best of intentions, but it has been managed incompetently. Both Parliaments and both Governments are to blame for the lack of oversight. I hope that both Parliaments will rediscover a spirit of co-operation on this issue and reappraise and reboot the city deal to ensure that we get the best effect for the people of Glasgow. I have been elected to do that, and I am going to ensure that that happens.

Rail Franchising

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I was going to come to that point later. I cannot understand the UK Government’s intransigence over devolving Network Rail, which it is anticipated would save the taxpayer £30 million and increase accountability to the Scottish Government.

I have touched on some of the causes of the demise of British Rail. Since privatisation, passenger numbers and investment have increased, but again we need to go back to cause and effect, because that was not a direct consequence of privatisation. It has been possible to lever in private investment, but that is recouped through passenger fares and public subsidy—that is the bottom line. When the Government allowed private investment to come in, they decided to be a bit bolder in specifying increased services, new rolling stock and other improvements for the franchises. However, that same ambition could be replicated either under nationalisation or by allowing public sector investment, rather than everything being levered in through private investment. Following privatisation, there was also an upturn in the economy, so a range of factors actually contributed to better passenger experience and increased numbers. The Transport Secretary really needs to move away from his “private equals good; public equals bad and inefficient” mentality, but I fear that today there are no signs of that changing.

In its 1997 manifesto, Labour reneged on its commitment to renationalising the rail system, but it at least commissioned the McNulty review in 2009 to identify better value for money in the railway franchise system. Incredibly, the Tory Government sat on that report for six years before coming up with modest proposals to vertically align the infrastructure and passenger operations in an alliance model.

Alliances can be made to work, or at least to work better than they do under the current franchise system. The ScotRail-Abellio alliance is the only franchise that stipulates that all staff must be paid the real living wage. It also guarantees trade union representation at every franchise board meeting, no compulsory redundancies and 100 new apprentices. Rather than making staff’s terms and conditions a mechanism for greater profit, the Scottish Government have incorporated protecting them into the contract. On passenger experience, there will be new rolling stock, 23% more carriages, a new approach to cycling interaction, and a drive to expand tourism. Those aims, ambitions and protections contrast directly with the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Tory’s southern rail franchise.

That is not to say that there were not teething problems with the new Abellio alliance, but it is now the best performing large franchise in the UK. Even so, the Scottish Government are putting in place measures to allow a public sector procurement bid to be submitted either at the end of the franchise or at the mid-point, where there is a possible break. The success of CalMac ferries in competing in the private sector shows how this can be achieved.

As we heard in the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), if responsibility for Network Rail was devolved to Scotland, with the body under the control of the Scottish Government, the operation of rail services in Scotland would be much more efficient, and there would be much more accountability. That would give us a better way to move forward.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the devolution of Network Rail, does the hon. Gentleman accept that power over devolved franchises has already been devolved? Enhanced capability was devolved in May 2016 whereby public sector bids could be brought forward for ScotRail. That was known well in advance of the current tender. Is it not the case that ScotRail could have been in public hands today if the Scottish Government had delayed that tender?

[Alan Brown]

A small history lesson: it was the UK Labour Government who refused to hand these powers over to Scotland. They had the chance to do so in 2000 and 2005. Since the Scottish National party Government came to power in 2007, they have written to three Transport Secretaries to ask for the powers to be devolved to Scotland, and three times that has been refused. The shortlist for the ScotRail-Abellio tender process was drawn up in November 2013, so the initial invitation to tender came way before that. The contract was awarded in October 2014—a year and a half before the new powers came into play. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that the Scottish Government could have sat on their hands and waited for future powers that might not have come. They did come, the Scottish Government will use them in the future, and they are preparing that public sector bid, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Debate between Paul Sweeney and Alan Brown

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown]

We will see what happens in the future, but at least I am here and the hon. Gentleman is receptive to another referendum, despite what has just happened.

Quickly moving on, since 2014 there have been a number of broken promises. Thirteen Type 26 frigates were promised, and a frigate factory was promised, but neither has been delivered.

[Mr Sweeney]

I point out that the independence White Paper only promised that two offshore patrol vessels would be built in Scotland in the event of independence, so anything more than two OPVs is a bonus for the Clyde. I ran the whole campaign on the basis of the shipbuilding industry in the Clyde, because it involved 30 years of guaranteed work and a world-class shipbuilding facility. Although there are challenges for which the Tories must answer, the current picture is none the less far preferable to what would have happened in the event of independence.

[Alan Brown]

I would argue that more boats were promised for a future independent Scotland. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 30 years of work. Does he agree with his union colleagues who said that the way that the orders have been placed is a betrayal of the shipyards and of the promises made?

Another broken promise is guaranteed continued investment in the new renewables sector. The Conservative party pulled the feed-in tariffs one year early. Solar and onshore wind companies are no longer allowed to bid in contract for difference auctions, which has resulted in a 95% drop in investment in the renewables industry and put one in six jobs at risk.

Scotland’s budget has been cut by £3.5 billion. To date, Westminster has refused to introduce a VAT exemption for Scottish fire and police services. Scottish farmers have been ripped off by the UK Government, which is holding on to nearly £200 million in common agricultural policy convergence uplift. Those are illustrations of how Westminster looks after Westminster’s interests and does not consider Scotland’s needs.