Marine Renewables: Government Support

Debate between Richard Graham and Wera Hobhouse

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Thank you for allowing me to be absent briefly from the debate. I was at an extraordinary meeting of the net zero all-party parliamentary group—I was needed to make sure that it was quorate.

The beauty of being called last is that one often repeats what has already been said, but I do not think it is necessarily bad that we all agree on many things. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this very important debate to the Chamber. It is important that we say certain things again and again, because they need to be said again and again to put a bit of fire under this Government, who—although I believe we all agree on the targets—are not acting with the necessary pace of change that I would like to see.

Just to set the scene again, climate change is devastating the world. The abnormally hot and cold temperatures across the world contribute to as many as 5 million deaths a year. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C instead of 2°C could result in around 420 million fewer people being exposed to extreme heatwaves, yet too many politicians are still treating our vital climate net zero targets like a bus—if we miss one, we can catch another one. There will be no next time if we miss our net zero targets. Our reliance on fossil fuels is not only terrible for the planet, but bad for our energy security. Our constituents would not be paying the price for Putin’s war if the UK had moved towards renewables faster, harder and earlier.

The UK must rapidly diversify its energy through multiple forms of clean energy sources. Hydropower is a proven green technology. It can provide flexible storage to support the growth of wind and solar at scale. Hydropower is affordable and reliable, and can be ramped up at short notice when needed. Well-developed plans for tidal range projects on the west coast could mobilise and deliver at least 10 GW of net zero energy, with a construction time of five to seven years. The UK also has the potential to develop up to 11.5 GW of tidal stream by 2050, supporting over 14,000 jobs. I agree with everything that has been said today. We should support everything, including what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said about tidal stream and lagoon energy.

The technologies are all there, but they could be developed much faster and more effectively if they did not always have to compete with fossil fuels or nuclear. The Minister knows that I am not a great supporter of nuclear, simply because it is a very expensive technology. If the nuclear industry had the same requirements for competitiveness as the renewables industry, it would not be able to compete in the same way. The renewable energy sector has to compete in a very competitive environment, which is good for our consumers—I get that—but let us apply the same rules to all energy sources, not just the renewable energy sector.

Committing to a target of 1 GW of marine energy by 2035 would send a powerful signal to investors that the UK is the best place to invest in tidal power. I continue to worry that the Government rely too much on fossil fuels. We are getting stuck in the transition. We are never getting out of it, and we will never end up in a net zero world. From 2016 to 2020, the Government provided £13.6 billion in support to the UK’s oil and gas industry. The Chancellor’s recent autumn statement confirmed that oil and gas giants will be allowed to continue offsetting taxes, while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill. Britain gives out the largest tax breaks in Europe to the oil and gas industry. Whose side are the Government on?

When I met the British Hydropower Association recently, it warned that weak grid capacity in some rural areas meant that not even one electric vehicle charging point could be installed. I agree that grid infrastructure is now the biggest issue holding back renewable energy developments in the UK. It must be prioritised. Where is the long-awaited reform of Ofgem’s remit?

[Richard Graham]

It is worth highlighting that the role of the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy—and the nature of this debate, which is on Government support for marine renewables—is to avoid an argument about which technology or type of energy is better than another. Our case is strongest when we focus on specific things that the Government can do. In this case, that is in the next round of the contracts for difference. A specific opportunity has been outlined for how the Government can help bring down the costs of our marine energy sector, where a lot of technologies are still in the early stages. We are not yet getting the advantages of scale from consolidating those technologies down to two or three that work really well that would make this as cheap and efficient as possible. The Government can help us do that. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is the right way forward for marine energy?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that exact point. How can we make sure that renewable energy technologies get the same support that the Government are giving to other forms of energy? I like to think that we all agree on the need to accelerate and turbocharge our renewable energy sector. My criticism of the Government—and the Minister is aware of this—is that we are not prioritising getting away from fossil fuel energy as soon as possible. That is my point, and it needs to be made again and again. I make that point at every opportunity to ensure that the Government understand the urgency that the climate emergency requires.

While we are at it, I want to quickly mention one of my particular interests, which is community energy—

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Wera Hobhouse

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to join the debate. One of the most enjoyable moments for me was to hear the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) making the case strongly and proudly for nuclear power. It was wonderful to hear that, and many of us on this side of the House have shared that feeling for a long time, while perhaps not everybody on her side has done so. It was fabulous to hear it being said.

This debate comes in a week when one of our most important nuclear power stations has just closed. It is a moment to pay tribute to all those involved in Hunterston B, which was designed to last for 25 years and actually did its job for 46 years—a tribute to the huge engineering skills and safety operation involved. It generated enough carbon-free electricity for the whole of Scotland for 31 years. In that context, I find it puzzling that the SNP continues to take such a strong anti-nuclear power position, after all the good work that Hunterston B has done for people across Scotland.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We always say that in the past it delivered so much energy, but what about the radioactive waste that is still there? We just close our eyes to that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I just remind Richard Graham before he continues that the new clause and amendments should be spoken to, as opposed to a general debate.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Debate between Richard Graham and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My apologies for hearing only the end of the speech by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I congratulate on securing this debate to discuss the important issue of human rights in Xinjiang.

I declare three interests. First, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. Secondly, for eight years, I was the director of the Great Britain-China Centre. Thirdly, in 1993, I was a member of the first-ever successful crossing of Taklamakan desert in Xinjiang, as part of an Anglo-Chinese and Uyghur crossing by foot. That led me to spend more time in Xinjiang than probably anyone else in the House of Commons, and has left me with a strong affection for that enormous, harsh and beautiful land of different minorities and peoples.

It is worth highlighting the all-party group’s expedition to Xinjiang some two and a half years ago to look into some of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and other hon. Members, and other issues as well. During that expedition, we were accompanied by the Minister’s enterprising now private secretary, who was then with the embassy in Beijing. More recently, the all-party group has had updated briefings in Beijing and London.

I have arrived at five thoughts to share with hon. Members. First, Xinjiang, which means “new land” in Mandarin, was known as East Turkestan for a long time. Although the name has changed, the essential cultural differences of that huge province remain fundamental to the way of life of its residents.

Secondly, the UK, which reopened formal relations with China in 1972—56 years ago—is now an important strategic partner of China and the depth of that relationship allows for respectful differences of view. Although we acknowledge and hugely recognise the vast progress that China has made in the living standards of its enormous population, and its contribution to the world’s economic growth—a consistent 30% for the last three decades—we can also express real concern about specific human rights issues in China and work with her on reforms to the rule of law, including on the death penalty, which has been one of the achievements of the Great Britain-China Centre.

Thirdly, on Xinjiang today, there can be no doubt that relations between the peoples of Xinjiang, by whom I mean predominantly the Uyghur community, but also other ethnic minorities—Kazakhs and people who would normally be found in Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz—have deteriorated considerably. They have worsened recently after a clampdown on the freedoms of expression, gathering and religion, and other freedoms that have been mentioned. Much of the evidence is anecdotal because it is very difficult to access information at first hand either by visiting the province or through journalists and others who have been there.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not the case that we need to ask for a reciprocal access policy? If we can have the same access as Chinese people have when they come to our country, that would be the first step. Ultimately, that would be exactly what we could negotiate.

[Richard Graham]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. It would not be impossible for her or others to go to Xinjiang. The question is what they would see and how genuine it might be. The point I want to highlight is that in recent times there has been much greater use of artificial intelligence and sophisticated control mechanisms to clamp down strongly on what we would regard as the fundamental freedoms of the people living there. The Minister might want to comment on this, but the opportunity is for the UK to try to help China recognise that some of the evidence coming out will not necessarily act in China’s own interests.

Of course, China has considerable security interests. For example, the bombing of the railway station in Yunnan a few years ago by Uyghurs was absolutely unacceptable, just as terrorism in this country is unacceptable. It is important that there are training and skills opportunities available to Uyghurs as there are in other parts of the country. But a large-scale detention policy of large numbers of people, or other repressions of freedoms such as Islamic boys under the age of 18 not being able to go and pray in a mosque, are not justified. Such issues will affect China’s belt and road initiative across central Asia, which is predominantly Muslim in religion, and there are issues that will damage China’s reputation internationally and affect the world’s acceptance of the increasing leadership role that China is taking on a range of global issues.

It is worth highlighting China’s report to the United Nations General Assembly on China’s human rights. In the report submitted in August last year—some 25 pages long—only one paragraph in the entire report is on Xinjiang, as I am sure the Minister knows. The report refers to the year of building people’s livelihood initiative, the disposable incomes of urban and rural residents and free education programmes, all of which are no doubt worthy in their own right, but they do not address the issues that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and others have raised today.

Although China would regard our interest in such matters as fundamentally interfering in her own domestic situation, the truth is that in this House we debate issues across the world for the benefit of all mankind. Today’s debate therefore shines a torch on the fact that we need to work closely with China on how the situation in Xinjiang will develop and on what changes might be made that will benefit the people of Xinjiang, particularly the Uyghur community, and China’s own standing in the world. Our role should be to work closely with her on some of those difficult issues.

Supported Housing

Debate between Richard Graham and Wera Hobhouse

Thursday 18th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point with his usual passion. I will not offer a lecture to the Treasury on how they should provide and quantify the amounts of money for particular parts of the supported housing provision that the Government are looking at reshaping. At this stage, we are trying to register our concerns, as he has done, on aspects of the supported housing report that we feel are not yet reflected in the Government’s position. We are also trying to encourage the Government, when looking at the response to the consultation, in which all these points will no doubt come up, to think widely—this is the great advantage of having the Minister in her new role—about what the Minister knows from her experience, and what I and other Members will share today from our experiences, about what works best on the ground.

That brings me to my last main point, which is about domestic violence refuges. Two really good points have been made. The first, made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, is that domestic violence refuges are slightly different because in many cases the individuals want to be out of the area—not just the parish, as my friend, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, mentioned, but quite often outside the constituency in which the violence happened. However, they will not all want to go to the same constituency, of course; they will want to move to different places, not least depending on where they have family links.

I can easily recall a woman fleeing from stalking in my constituency who wanted to be very far away, not only because of her fear of the individual who had stalked her, but because she wanted to go with her young children to where her mother was, to receive that additional family support. The issue is not just one of national funding, or having a national network, but of access, and how that works practically. If somebody fleeing domestic violence wants to move, for the sake of argument, from Gloucester to Birkenhead to take advantages of family links there, how will that work in practice? I can imagine that such access could be difficult.

I know the new Minister has experience of domestic violence refuges; I think I am right in saying that she helped to set one up in her constituency. That side of the argument is about the importance of localisation, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South mentioned. These things are very often best done on the ground by people who know how to do them. Bishop Rachel of Gloucester, in her new role, has very much championed a refuge that the diocese has effectively provided in the centre of our city. That is a really good example of a local initiative that I certainly would not want ruled out as a result of a very top-down approach, led by the man or woman in Whitehall who knows best.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the full cost is met, so that local authorities do not end up with a shortfall? That is the most important thing that I am calling for as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for local government.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Wera Hobhouse

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Today and last Thursday, a number of speakers on both sides of the House stated that this Bill is not about whether we leave the EU, but about how. That should be something on which we can all agree, although today we have heard speeches from those who clearly take a different position. For example, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made it absolutely clear that he was fighting against leaving the EU at all. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made an equally passionate speech, saying that she was voting to stay in the European economic area, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) started his speech by stating that he would not vote for the Bill this evening, and then looked for reasons as to why he would not do so, which is broadly the position of almost all his colleagues.

If we look at the Bill objectively, surely everybody can agree that we are where we are, and that we must have arrangements in place that suit every organisation in this country, including the prospect of knowing what the law of the land is at the end of March 2019.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

I am tempted to give way, but I will not because are so many other people wish to speak. Will the hon. Lady forgive me?

[Wera Hobhouse]

indicated assent.

[Richard Graham]

It is all about what the process will be. Interestingly, some of us have had the chance to look at a House of Lords report, which recommended some elements that this Bill should include. The report made it absolutely clear that delegated powers will be necessary in some cases, because the sheer volume of legislation needed—some 12,000 pieces of legislation—means that unless we use those powers effectively, the job will simply not be done in time.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee, which is not known to be a warm friend of this Government, made two specific recommendations. It recommended that

“a general provision be placed on the face of the Bill to the effect that the delegated powers granted by the Bill should be used only: so far as necessary to adapt the body of EU law to fit the UK’s domestic legal framework; and so far as necessary to implement the result of the UK’s negotiations with the EU.”

When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill on Thursday, he made it absolutely clear that that was broadly what the Government hoped to achieve. He went further and specified what the legislation would not be about. He made it clear that the powers in clause 9 would be for only two years and that they would make “technical and legal corrections” to deficiencies in the law. He also made it clear that Ministers will not have the power to make major policy changes and that changes will still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

Several Members, mostly on the Opposition Benches, have questioned the definition of significant, what restraint there will be on the Government when deciding what is and what is not important, and what constitute technical and legal corrections. Therefore, there has been a debate, with Members on both sides of the House offering suggestions as to how things can be improved. The Secretary of State has said that he is in listening mode and that he is happy to talk about mechanisms for making sure that the process is fully democratic and open. All that is encouraging and in tune with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) referred to on Thursday during his important contribution to the debate. In particular, he said that it is important

“to have an established parliamentary system of scrutiny to ensure that the different types of statutory instruments that will be needed are correctly farmed out. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend”—

the Secretary of State—

“is right that the vast majority of them will be technical and of very little account, but some will be extremely important and will need to be taken on the Floor of the House. We need to have a system in place to do that.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 407.]

My right hon. and learned Friend did not recommend a specific system, but it seems relevant to suggest here that we already have what is, effectively, a body for precisely this task: the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We also have a different model, or possibly an additional one. I am talking about what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is obliged to go through as a statutory requirement: the Social Security Advisory Committee. Some of us believe that we could use a combination of both those bodies. We could use an advisory committee to provide the technical analysis of proposed changes, and the Joint Committee to go through them and approve or disapprove the recommendations.