Remote Coastal Communities

Debate between Perran Moon and Torcuil Crichton

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that in the fullness of time, we will receive more details on that funding, which will be very important for the fishing industry—we are certainly very keen to ensure we see the benefit of it within Cornwall. It has to be practical, and it has to be applied where it is most appropriate.

The issue of homes is an important one. When homes become investments rather than homes for local people, communities lose their heart and young people lose their future. As such, the next pressure I want to highlight is educational isolation and the lack of opportunity facing young people in remote coastal locations, which has been mentioned. Research from Plymouth Marjon University shows that schools in such locations struggle in vital areas, including school staff recruitment and retention, support and external investment. Poor transport links, rural roads and seasonal traffic make travel difficult, limiting opportunities for both pupils and teachers and deterring potential recruits.

Our young people are presented with Hobson’s choice: move inland to find work opportunities, or face an uncertain future with limited prospects of a home of their own. That migration reinforces geographic inequality. In a recent report on the issue, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted:

“Reducing economic disparities…requires bringing opportunity to people—not just raising skills, but building places where skills are rewarded.”

Its report specifically highlights that coastal areas tend to lose out, with migration reducing average earnings by over 5% in parts of Cornwall. Young people face the “half-compass effect”, with the sea on one side, poor transport on the other, and limited access to employers.

A direct consequence of that lack of youth opportunity can be seen in the age profile of remote coastal communities. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median age in coastal built-up areas is 42—three years older than in non-coastal areas—and 25% of residents over 16 are retired, compared with 20.6% inland.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He is Labour’s south by south-west to my north by north-west. It is good to have our communities connected to a Government who make change for rural areas and coastal communities. My constituency has much in common with his; it faces the same challenges of connectivity, demographics and housing, and it also has the same potential with fisheries, the people themselves, the culture, the language and the renewables resource, which all of the community should have a share in. Does he agree that we need not only more central Government support, but more devolution? My constituency has been badly treated by devolution: we faced the ferry fiasco that has cost half a billion pounds; we have faced the farce of highly protected marine areas being imposed on us by devolved Government that would have closed down our entire fishery; and because of depopulation, we face the fiasco of reduced funding—being punished for people moving away. Does he agree that we need not only more central Government support, but more power in these peripheral areas so that we can run our own affairs?

[Perran Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent points about remote coastal areas and the challenges we face. Obviously, he faces a particular challenge that we do not face in Cornwall, as he also has to put up with an SNP Government.

Since many residents live outside built-up areas, the true figure on age might be even higher. Cornwall has seen sustained population growth, largely driven by the migration of older people drawn to its geographical appeal as a place to retire. This older migration population means increased health and care needs. Data from the Institute of Cornish Studies shows that 43% of households moving to Cornwall from elsewhere are economically inactive, placing huge further strains on public services. Funding formulas rarely account for that reality. We have more demand for carers, more long-term health conditions, and more demand on health and social care systems. In remote areas like Cornwall, care is harder to reach and far more expensive to deliver.

With our ageing population come the health inequalities that deeply affect remote coastal communities. The chief medical officer’s 2021 report on health and wellbeing in coastal communities identifies a coastal excess of disease driven by deprivation, age profile and behaviours such as obesity, smoking and alcohol use. Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy were all lower in coastal areas. The report made it clear that in coastal communities, these factors converge to the detriment of local people, who face income insecurity, low-paid seasonal work and limited educational capital. The 10-year health plan does acknowledge the challenges faced by coastal communities, particularly in its shift from hospital to community care, but more needs to be done.

Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Perran Moon and Torcuil Crichton

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Perran Moon]

Under national minority status—well, the right hon. Gentleman can draw his own conclusion.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I question whether amendment 3 would be beneficial to Scotland or give Scotland a competitive advantage, as has been claimed. I think it is deeply contrary to Scotland’s interests.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth has pointed out, we are not in separate energy markets. We live in one energy market, and that would not change even if we were divided into separate states, as Cornwall might well one day become. The transmission of energy does not respect borders. It is pretty obvious that it would make no sense to invest only in the national grid north of Berwick, while someone else invested in the national grid south of Berwick.

In my constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar, we have the glaring anomaly that the energy companies of other states—Norway, Ireland, France—are investing in renewable generation, but there is no British state energy company. That is what I hope will come into being under the Bill. At one time we had the British National Oil Company, but that fell when Mrs Thatcher came to power—on the back of SNP votes, of course.

The fact that other state energy companies are investing in my constituency points to another glaring inconsistency in the amendment. If we followed its principle, Ireland would invest only in Ireland, France only in France and Norway only in Norway, but we know that that is not how things work. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund does not just invest in Norway; it makes global investments. It is not built just on narrow investment or narrow nationalism within its own borders; Statoil, now Equinor, invests globally. I hope that in due course GB Energy will invest globally so that the profits serve every corner of the United Kingdom, not just one.

I can understand why the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South wants to talk just about hypothetical money and future money. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the Scottish Government have already squandered the money that they raised from renewables. The Scotland licences for offshore wind farming were sold off cheaply by the right hon. Member’s colleagues in Edinburgh, although they still got 10 times more than they thought they could. Astonishingly, the SNP was ready to sell all 14 leases for just £75 million, but fortunately the Crown Estate auction in England and Wales went first and raised more than £1 billion, which gave the Scottish Government pause for thought. They called in the consultants, multiplied the figure by 10 and managed to raise £750 million, which was still too little in comparison with what could have been raised. That £750 million has been frittered away; it has not gone into any sovereign wealth fund or been used for the future benefit of public expenditure on energy infrastructure.

It is all well and good to talk about hypothetical, sealed-off, insular energy markets, but that is just not how it is or how it will be. Scotland, together with the rest of the UK, can have a huge input into GB Energy, which the Bill will set up, and we can all gain through a common effort in the benefits of its evolution.

Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Perran Moon and Torcuil Crichton

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Perran Moon]

My question has been answered.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Q Thank you, Andy, for your impressive evidence. I also declare an interest as a member of the GMB. You welcome the Bill, possibly the prescription part for renewables, but what would you write in that prescription part to ensure that the workforce is involved and that we retain that workforce as we move to green energy away from oil and gas?

Andy Prendergast: The role of trade unions is key. I have always had a very simple view: trade unions are about democracy at work. We are a country that believes in democracy so much that we invade other countries to give it to them whether they want it or not, and yet the idea of democratisation at the workplace is an anathema—certainly to what was over half of Parliament.

We need to listen to workers and ensure that they share in the success of businesses and ultimately that their sacrifices and those of their families are recognised. When we look at the work that is going to be coming out, we know that we have to do this. We have been asking for an industrial plan for years, and I think GB Energy is part of that industrial plan. That industrial plan has to be a road map of how we do this properly, how we engage those communities and how we provide the support necessary to make a transition.

I mentioned going to Denmark. When I was there, something fascinating happened: they closed a bacon plant, which was 1,000 jobs. You sit there and say, “That’s terrible. In Britain, we’d be fighting that. We’d be on picket lines.” In Denmark, because of the support given in social security and retraining, and the industrial strategy, it was seen as an opportunity for people to get better jobs. That was also helped an awful lot by the fact that those people were getting 90% of their salary paid for up to a year, so people thought, “Well, it’s a better job and a bit of a holiday in the meantime.” That shows what happens when you engage people properly.

What you ended up with is something that would decimate a community in Britain but rejuvenated a community in Denmark. That is because there was a tripartite strategy of listening to unions, talking to Government and talking to employers, and everyone put their heads together to come up with a solution to what would clearly be a problem. We have failed at that in Britain for years.