Swansea Tidal Lagoon

Debate between Simon Hart and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential economic benefits of the Swansea Tidal Lagoon.

The 2015 Welsh Conservative manifesto said:

“We know how important Wales is to the UK’s energy security…We’re entering into the first phase of negotiations on a Contract for Difference for Swansea Tidal Lagoon to recognise Wales’ potential to become a major hub for tidal and wave power. This project will create thousands of jobs and attract millions of pounds worth of investment into Wales. We will continue to support strategic energy projects in Wales to boost the Welsh economy and help secure Wales’ energy future.”

So far so good. It is unusual in this day and age for a manifesto commitment to have the widespread support of quite so many interested groups. They include the UK Government, all parties in this House, the Welsh Government, all parties in that Assembly and local government in areas where the lagoon might be constructed and other areas in Wales that will reap the benefits of it. Environmentalists by and large see it as a clean form of renewable energy; economists across the UK and further afield recognise the long-term value of the project; and, almost without exception, the local communities affected directly or indirectly support the proposal. I can remember few, if any, commitments from any party’s manifesto that have such widespread and cross-party support.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman did not mention the Scottish National party—perhaps for understandable reasons—so may I say, as an SNP Member, that I am very supportive of it as well?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The only reason I did not mention the SNP is that I forgot. I hope he does not take that to heart.

The Swansea bay tidal lagoon project ticks a lot of boxes—to use that rather awful expression. If I make only one point this afternoon, it is this: it must not be seen as a one-off project or a stand-alone proposal. It is part of a four-part proposal for the Severn estuary. It will lead to other projects around the UK coast, and after that—who knows?—perhaps across the rest of the globe. We have a chance to be a global leader in this technology; to start it down with us in the Swansea bay. It is equally important that the Government look at it not as a stand-alone project, but in the context of the proposals for Cardiff and Newport. This is not about just Swansea, Wales or the UK; nor is it about just renewable energy, which has been debated so often here.

I have four issues that I will deal with as quickly as I can, given your steer, Mr Brady: the current situation; employment opportunities; the questions about costs, which have been reported in the press; and other benefits, which sadly do not seem to have been reported at all. On the current situation, this is about a long-term plan for the UK and beyond. Over the next 10 years, the UK will lose 11 of its coal-fired power stations, followed by our ageing nuclear capability. In technical terms, that is the same as a 25 GW reduction out of a total capacity of 85 GW across the UK. As yet, nobody has made it entirely clear how we will fill that void. Hinkley Point is 10 years off, and today further questions were raised about the speed and certainty of that project. No new gas-fired power stations are under construction in the UK.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Simon Hart and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Yesterday we were treated to nearly 40 speeches on this topic, of which only 10 were in support of the Bill. However, the speech that stuck in my mind more than any of the others was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who was in danger of giving politics a good name by putting her principles before her career. I think that her speech united members of our party behind her, and behind those who, sadly, take a view that is very different from that taken on our Front Bench.

I use the word “sadly” with great emphasis, for, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), I am not a rebel. I once abstained on an issue of importance —the imposition of VAT on static caravans, as it happens—but that is about as big a nuisance as I have been in the two and a half years for which I have been here. The decision to vote against the Bill, however, has been the easiest that I have had to make in those two and a half years.

I will leave the constitutional expertise to others, but I will say that my decision was made so easy by three regrets. The first is presentational. I may be in a small minority, but I am one of those people who do not become infected by the view that we must have a democratic House of Lords. I do not want a democratic House of Lords, and that is precisely why I shall vote against the Bill. I want objectivity, expertise, experience and wisdom, all the qualities that we are told so often that we do not have in this House. I do not want Members of the House of Lords to be subject to the electoral and party pressures to which we may be subject here.

We seem to have spent the last goodness knows how many hours—some would say years—worrying desperately about what this place should look like, and not worrying nearly enough about what it should actually do. To those who keep saying, “This is all very tedious, so let us just get on with it”, I would respond, “Yes, this is all very tedious, so let us get on with not doing it, and instead do the work for which we are paid.”

My second regret is constitutional. It reflects the view expressed by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), that the constitution is not the property of the Government. In fact it is not really the property of Parliament, and it is certainly not the property of the Liberal Democrats. However, it is the property of the nation, and I find very indigestible the experience of standing here and watching it being used—some would say “abused”—for the sake of what will be, at best, two and a half years of coalition management. That is one reason why the decision that I shall make at 10 pm will be such an easy one.

Let us be honest. We talked a great deal about the timetable yesterday, but this is not really about the timetable. Of course the timetable is important, but the reason we are so agitated is that this is actually a rotten Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It will do nothing for the reputation of Parliament, nothing for the reputation of politicians, and nothing to reconnect us with voters who, after several years of disconnection, are looking for inspiration. They want to see us doing the things that we were elected to do, rather than becoming involved in self-indulgent vanity projects inside this building.

I have to say, with enormous sadness, that if we get anywhere near the Parliament Acts as a means of concluding this particular debate, we will convert a rebellion into a mutiny. The strength of the arguments presented yesterday demonstrated that the legislation needs to go back to the drawing board. It demonstrated that those who genuinely favour constitutional reform, improvement and devolution in the House of Lords are willing to do business, but not with a gun held to their head. That would be an act of extraordinary vandalism.

My third regret is political. Last week, again with great sadness, I supported measures to disband 17 Army units. This week, we are being asked to create 360 new politicians to add to the 122 who have already been created in this House, all of whom will earn a great deal more money than our servicemen could ever hope to earn. That is simply too big a pill for me to swallow.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hart]

No, I will not.