Fuel Poverty

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be debating such an important issue with the Minister in this, our first debate together in this Chamber. I welcome the comments he has made thus far.

As Members are aware, this debate is a statutory requirement. As such, it is a prime opportunity to examine the efficacy of the Government’s actions to date in tackling fuel poverty. As the Minister has said, it is an opportunity for Members to share experiences from their own constituencies on this matter.

My local authority has been championing its own fuel poverty strategy. “A Fair Energy Deal for Salford” is one campaign that it is working on with partners such as National Energy Action, energy companies, registered social landlords and landlords in the private rented sector to obtain a pledge to reduce the number of prepayment meters and replace them with standard meters. A shocking 22% of households in Salford have prepayment meters, whereas the national average is 15.1%, as the Minister knows.

In addition, the ability of my local authority to assist vulnerable households has been extended. It launched the “Warm Salford” campaign in 2015, which provides additional grants to give vulnerable households better access to energy company obligation products or to assist those who are vulnerable, but who do not meet the criteria of the national schemes.

We also launched the Warm Salford Referral Network in October 2014, which brings together a partnership of local authorities, the NHS and third-sector partners. It aims to reach those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty. The good news is that from 2015 to December 2016, more than 310 vulnerable households were referred to it, given advice and referred on for the help they needed to access local, regional and national schemes.

Despite that positive news, 11,333 homes—that is 10.8% of Salford’s households—are still living in fuel poverty. Nationally, despite similar action by other local authorities, more than 4 million families and households are living in fuel poverty in the UK. That is 15 homes in every 100. Members from all parts of the House will no doubt have been contacted by their constituents about fuel poverty. If not, I suggest that they watch the film “I, Daniel Blake”, which shows in painful detail the desperation of one family trying to warm themselves on tea lights in a plant pot because they cannot afford to top up the prepayment meter.

I met one such constituent in Salford—a mother who was living in poorly maintained private sector accommodation, with small children sleeping beside walls covered in black mould. There was not enough money for that mother to pay the bills or even turn the heating on to alleviate the damp conditions. The desperation in that mother’s eyes when she told me she just could not cope any more, as I tried to find help out there, will haunt me forever.

Sadly, that is not a stand-alone case. A cold, poorly insulated home does not just mean that lots of heat is wasted, resulting in a high bill; it means people getting ill, repeated visits to the doctor, a much longer recovery time and, ultimately, greater pressure on the NHS.

[Jonathan Edwards]

If I heard the hon. Lady correctly, she said that 15% of households in the UK live in fuel poverty. In Wales, the figure is considerably worse at well over a third. The Welsh Government have failed to make any inroads into that over the past 20 years or so, despite Wales being an energy-rich nation and a substantial exporter of electricity. Does she agree that for the people of Wales, at least part of the answer should be Welsh communities getting control over their own energy resources?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. There is scope for communities to regain control of their energy supplies in the longer term. That is certainly something the Government should look at. There are a number of other important points that I would like the Minister to address today, so I will continue with my submission.

The health impacts of fuel poverty are worst for those who are most vulnerable—for example, disabled people who find it difficult to move around and do not get the chance to warm up; young people, who run twice the risk of developing a respiratory condition such as asthma; and adolescents, who face a fivefold increase in the likelihood of mental illness. Evidence also highlights that infants living in cold conditions have a 30% greater risk of admission to hospital or primary care facilities. Older people also face a significantly high risk, as the Marmot review team highlighted, stating that they are almost three times more likely to suffer from coughing, wheezing and respiratory illness.

Sir John Hills, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics, states that there is a body of persuasive evidence that links low temperatures with a number of health impacts, ranging from minor infections to serious medical conditions that can ultimately prove fatal. Sadly, that has proven to be the case, with the NEA finding that an average of over 8,000 people in England and Wales die each winter because they cannot keep their homes warm at a reasonable cost. That estimate includes eight attributable deaths in my constituency of Salford and Eccles—eight deaths.

Finance Bill

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I shall speak to new clause 14 and amendments 174 to 176. Amendment 174 would remove clause 82 from the Finance Bill, thereby preventing the proposed cut to the rate of capital gains tax. The cut will reduce the basic rate of capital gains tax from 18% to 10%, and the rate on most gains made by individuals, trustees and personal representatives from 28% to 20%. Gains on residential property and carried interest will still be charged at the higher rate.

I do not want to go over old ground, but I must emphasise the Labour party’s opposition to this reduction in the rate of CGT. I thank my colleagues from other parties for joining us in our opposition. At a time when our public services are stretched to breaking point, the NHS is on its knees, our education sector is over-stretched, housing is in a state of complete crisis, people across the UK are being forced to use food banks, some mothers are going hungry because they cannot afford to feed their children and themselves, and the wider economy is in desperate need of direct investment in skills, infrastructure and industry, it seems frankly absurd to give a tax break of £2.7 billion to the richest people in our society.

Let us not forget that this CGT giveaway hails from a Budget that also planned to take away billions in welfare payments from the most vulnerable people in need of state support. The Government seemed quite happy at the time of the Budget for 300,000 disabled people to lose more than £3,000 a year in their personal independence payments. In stark contrast, our own research has found that the CGT-cutting measures of the Finance Bill amount to a tax giveaway to 200,000 people of about £3,000 a year on average. I am pleased to say that due to Labour’s opposition and the support of some Members from other parties, the worst has not yet happened in relation to PIP, but that still does not justify this policy decision in the Bill. Labour party research shows that just 0.3% of the population will benefit, with those taxpayers likely to benefit to the largest degree being in London and the south-east. If the Government do not accept our evidence, perhaps they will listen to the Resolution Foundation, which said that the CGT cut was

“focused on those on higher incomes—unsurprisingly because in general better off households are the ones making capital gains in the first place.”

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The hon. Lady makes a compelling case. One of the major challenges we face in the UK is geographical and individual wealth polarisation. Based on what she says about where the likely beneficiaries of this tax system would be, what does she think that the policy will do to tackle the great challenge of wealth polarisation that we face?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I certainly do not think that it will address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises—quite the opposite, in fact.

The Prime Minister herself made the following commitment to the British public on the steps of Downing Street:

“The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours.”

Going back on this policy today would be a good place to start.

Swansea Tidal Lagoon

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to debate opposite the Minister for the first time. It is fitting that two ladies are representing the Government and the Opposition on International Women’s Day. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing this debate. In his opening remarks he eloquently explained why the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is a particularly exciting subject.

The construction of a tidal low-carbon power plant represents a real opportunity for the UK to be at the forefront of renewable technology innovation. That fundamental point has been echoed by other hon. Members today. I do not intend to go over those remarks, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) has already done so rather articulately.

This debate has been a fantastic opportunity to highlight the potentially huge economic benefits of encouraging tidal lagoon power. Of course, we have also heard the hopes of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government will come to an agreement on the level of state support required to get this project off the ground. Indeed, the Conservative party’s manifesto contained a commitment to the Swansea tidal lagoon as a source of

“secure, affordable and low-carbon energy”.

However, there is a fear in many quarters that, since then, the Government appear to have kicked the project into the long grass. I hope that this debate will help to remind the Government of their commitment and that we will see some movement towards meeting it.

As we have heard, the proposed Swansea bay tidal lagoon has clear environmental benefits, as it harnesses a sustainable source of energy to generate a significant amount of carbon-free electricity over a long lifespan. Tidal Lagoon Power, the company that will construct, own and operate the plant, has suggested that it will generate enough electricity to power 90% of homes in Swansea bay over a 120-year lifespan. Indeed, as the generation of power relies only on the tide, it is an entirely predictable source of renewable energy.

Given the Government’s cuts to other renewables, we hope that tidal lagoon technology will not be the next to suffer, particularly because the economic case, as we have heard today, is as strong as the environmental case. For instance, a key benefit of developing the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is the number of jobs that it will create and support during its construction and lifetime. Tidal Lagoon Power estimates that the project will support 1,900 jobs during construction and 181 jobs during each year of operation. That is supported by research by the Welsh economy research unit at Cardiff University, which estimates that 1,850 full-time equivalent jobs will be supported across the region for the three-year construction period.

Such employment opportunities will be incredibly beneficial to the Swansea bay area of Wales, which has a somewhat high rate of economic inactivity and has recently been dealt a blow with the loss of jobs in the steel industry—another sector that, frankly, the Government should be doing much more to support. In fact, today we heard that an estimated 370,000 tonnes of steel are required for this project alone.

The Swansea bay tidal lagoon presents a real opportunity to rejuvenate the area, offering employment in a new, growing industry. As the Cardiff University research unit explains,

“integrating construction demand with local manufacturing inputs and new industry will be an important means of strengthening prospects in these important parts of the regional economy.”

Similarly, trade unions have added their voice to business leaders and academic experts. Unite Wales, for example, hailed the project as

“both superb and significant in terms of the vision, energy and employment potential it could bring to Wales.”

Furthermore, the local community will benefit greatly from the plans for the lagoon area itself. We have heard today that Tidal Lagoon Power has outlined its ambition

“for the lagoon to become a major attraction and recreational amenity…showcasing tidal range technology and providing a unique venue for opportunities in the arts, culture”.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and for confirming from the Front Bench that the Labour party is fully behind the project. The key question for her as someone who aspires to be in the Minister’s seat is this: how would a future Labour Government pay for the project if they were in charge of it? Would they use a strike price model via a contract for difference, or does she agree that we should consider direct public investment as a far cheaper way for the public to finance the scheme?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting and pertinent points. I hope that the Minister has considered them, and that the Government will address many of those issues in the review currently being undertaken. We as a party will comment on them when the facts and information become available in due course.

Air Passenger Duty: Regional Airports

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, especially since this is my first speech as shadow Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. I am pleased to be working with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today; no doubt we will spar together on other occasions. I offer my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing an important debate on a topic that is of concern to me not only in my capacity as shadow Exchequer Secretary, but because my constituency will be affected.

I thank the hon. Members who spoke in the debate. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) gave a passionate account of the impact that air passenger duty has on her local airport, Prestwick. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) spoke about the plight of Blackpool airport, especially in the light of its closure not so long ago and its struggle to get back on its feet. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) rightly questioned the future viability of APD generally. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made some important points about how Belfast has suffered in its competition with Dublin airport. The right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) highlighted the fact that the time for debate is now: it is an important issue and we need to get a grip on it quickly. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) made some fantastic points relating to Northern Ireland, and there were also fantastic contributions from the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry).

Air passenger duty was highlighted in recommendations by the Smith commission. I reiterate my party’s support for the implementation of the commission’s recommendations as set out in the Scotland Bill. Inevitably, that will have consequences, but that should not undermine the principle of devolution for Scotland, and indeed Wales and Northern Ireland. That said, we cannot escape the fact that the Scottish Government’s anticipated reduction of air passenger duty by 50% in the next five years and their intention to abolish it altogether when finances allow are predicted to have a significant effect on regional airports in England, especially those close to the border. HMRC research conducted in 2012 suggested that the number of passengers using Newcastle airport would decline by 10% the short term, and that Manchester, the closest airport to my constituency, would lose almost 5%.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton, whose constituency neighbours mine, cited evidence in a previous debate on this issue that if one easyJet and one Ryanair flight were moved from Manchester to Glasgow, the Treasury would lose £2.9 million and 450 jobs would be lost in Manchester. That is of course a forecast, but we can already see the effects of variable rates of air passenger duty by examining the situation in Northern Ireland. Belfast International has suggested that it loses between 570,000 and 1.5 million passengers a year to Dublin airport, where no APD is levied. Dublin airport has run a marketing campaign specifically targeted at attracting Northern Ireland passengers, and in 2013 the number of passengers from Northern Ireland using Dublin airport increased by 12%. With the possibility of powers to determine APD rates being devolved to Wales in due course, the issue is set to have an impact not only on airports in the north of England, but on those in the south-west.

[Jonathan Edwards]

As the hon. Lady has mentioned my beloved homeland, will she confirm that it is now the policy of the Labour party to support the devolution of APD to Wales? Previously—I appreciate that it was before the hon. Lady was elected to the House—the Labour party abstained on such votes on Finance Bills. I should be grateful for clarification, because that would be quite a shift in her party’s policy.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I shall come on to my party’s position in due course.

I was saying that the possibility of powers to determine APD being devolved to Wales could lead to an impact on airports in the north of England and the south-west. York Aviation has predicted that, with Cardiff airport no longer subject to air passenger duty, Bristol airport would lose 440,000 passengers, up to 33 routes, 1,500 jobs and more than £800 million from local GDP. That concern has been cemented by a warning from Ryanair’s commercial chief that the company could double its profits per passenger by flying from Cardiff instead, should APD rates be set to zero there. It is therefore clear that the devolution of powers to set air passenger duty will have a profound effect on England’s regional airports, so I am glad that the Conservatives heeded the advice of my colleagues the then shadow Chancellor Ed Balls and my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) when they wrote to the Government in September last year, calling on the Treasury to start work on a mechanism to prevent English regional airports from being disadvantaged by devolution to Scotland or anywhere else.

I welcome the Government’s publication of a discussion paper outlining three possible options for tackling the issues affecting our regional airports. I have a few specific concerns about the consultation, on which I am sure the Minister will be able to put me at ease, but first I ask the Minister for an update on the progress of the consultation as a whole. It is my understanding that the closing date for submissions was 8 September, but as yet there has been no published evidence and no conclusions from the Government. Will the Minister say when the Government’s response will be published? More specifically, one solution discussed in the paper is to devolve the power to set rates of air passenger duty to local or combined authorities, either partially or fully. That seems to have implications for our compliance with EU state aid rules. The Labour party supports reform of the EU state aid rules, which would be a much better subject for renegotiation that those chosen by the Prime Minister. None the less, the current rules will apply.

One problem is that the Government cannot vary national tax rates in a way that is more favourable to specific regions. For that reason funding for the relevant local authority would be reduced by the full value of air passenger duty receipts in that area. HMRC research indicates that full devolution to a local authority containing one medium-sized airport would require a staggering reduction in funding of £45 million a year. The point of devolving the powers is to allow regional airports to avoid undercutting by rivals. Can the Minister confirm that under that option a local authority that took that course would receive no extra funding from central Government and would have to deal with a cut of £45 million? He will understand our concern that even the devolution package the Chancellor proposes will not contain much in the way of revenue-raising powers, nor anything like the scope that the devolved Administrations have to make savings elsewhere. Also, does he share my concern that if local authorities are able to set their own levels of APD, it will start a race to the bottom, which, taken to its logical conclusion, would result in an overall loss to the Treasury of £3.2 billion?