| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
That the draft Passengers' Council (Non-Railway Functions) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 5 January, be approved. -(Mrs. Hodgson.)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 5 January, be approved. -(Mrs. Hodgson.)
The Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow.
European Union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),
That this House takes note of an unnumbered explanatory memorandum from HM Treasury dated 2 December 2009 on the European Court of Auditors' 2008 Annual Report, an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from the Department for International Development dated 3 December 2009 on the European Court of Auditors Annual Report on the activities funded by the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds, concerning the financial year 2008, European Union Document No. 12139/09 and Addenda 1 and 2 on the Protection of the financial interests of the Communities, an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from HM Treasury dated 18 August 2009 on the European Anti-Fraud Office's ninth activity report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2008, European Union Document No. 12668/09 and Addendum 1, Commission Report on the Annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2008, European Union Document No. 14998/09 and Addendum 1, a Commission Report to the European Parliament on the follow-up to 2007 Discharge Decisions (Summary)-European Parliament Resolutions, European Union Document No. 16632/09, European Court of Auditors Special Report on delegating implementing tasks to executive agencies, European Union Document No. 17588/09, Commission Report to the Council on the follow-up to 2007 Discharge Decisions (Summary)-Council recommendations; and supports the Government's promotion of measures to improve the level of assurance given on the Community budget. -(Mrs. Hodgson.)
The Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow.
Petition
Planning and Development (Essex)
10.1 pm
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): I warmly congratulate two of my constituents, Mr. Brian Keeler and Mr. Neil Hamper. Both are doughty campaigners who have worked for their community for many years, serving people with great honour and dignity, and they have delivered a significant petition which, in bulk, will be delivered directly to the council tomorrow evening. The councillors will be held to account by the community for their decision. Residents want the plan to be rejected.
As the petition is rather long, I shall not read it out.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of Brian Keeler, the residents of Castle Point and others,
Declares that they object to the proposed development of the area between Nos. 18 to 32 High Road, Benfleet to construct a building providing 5 Retail Units at Ground Level, 22 Parking Spaces, 2 Offices, plus 12 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 1 bed flats at 1st and 2nd floor levels; that this development should be rejected because the proposed, much larger building would dominate and overlook existing properties, bring unacceptable problems including inadequate parking, fails to show where access to and from the site parking area will be, bearing in mind an existing public parking area in Adelaide Gardens, vague refuse storage area, restricted sight lines for emerging traffic from St Mary's Drive, reduction of the pavement, loss of light entering adjoining buildings and relocation of the heritage telephone kiosk and post box; further declares that this development would further spoil the Conservation Area and create unacceptable stress on the existing infrastructure, including roads, schools, rail, doctors, dentists, etc.; that for these and many other valid planning reasons this application should be rejected by the local Councillors, elected to represent their constituents, and that given the importance to the wider community of protecting this unique Conservation Area, unelected and unaccountable officers must properly and widely consult the public before permitting such developments.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press Castle Point Borough Council, and all Councillors, to reject this planning application and to substantially protect the unique St Mary's Conservation area.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
Aluminium Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mrs. Hodgson.)
10.2 pm
Mr. Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on a topic that is of significant interest in my constituency, and of wider interest to the UK economy.
My constituency includes the town of Bridgnorth. It may surprise the House to learn that Bridgnorth is sometimes known as the aluminium capital of the country. That is because it is home to two large aluminium processing plants: Bridgnorth Aluminium, a rolling mill that makes aluminium flat-rolled coiled products including litho for the printing industry, and employs some 230 people; and Novelis, whose subsidiary has rolling mills in Bridgnorth and is the last aluminium foil producer in the UK. Its foil is used as packaging in containers and as food packaging, and has other industrial uses. It employs 300 people. Both companies are among the largest employers in my constituency, and together they represent one of the largest remaining repositories of aluminium skills in the country.
Last September, the main supplier to Bridgnorth Aluminium-the primary smelter operated at Holyhead on Anglesey by Anglesey Aluminium-was closed. I do not intend to dwell on its demise because the subject has often been raised in the House, not least by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is present tonight. I shall be happy for him to contribute to the debate after my speech and before the Minister responds, if he wishes to do so. The Minister himself was intimately involved in the discussions that preceded the closure, which was a result not of his contribution, but of a failure to provide an acceptable economic package to allow energy to be supplied at a competitive price. I shall return to that shortly.
I am aware that the Government tried to put in place a rescue package worth some £12 million a year for four years to subsidise energy costs. My purpose tonight is not to debate the failure of that package but to highlight the problems that muddled Government policy is posing to the remaining aluminium and other heavy industrial manufacturers in this country, many of which are at severe risk of going the same way.
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, aluminium production is one of the most energy-intensive processes in manufacturing. As David Bloor, managing director of Anglesey Aluminium, explained to Members at a presentation in December, when describing why the plant had closed:
"Anglesey Aluminium could not afford to buy power in the UK and reach a breakeven financial position. This is because the worldwide price of aluminium does not include a cost of carbon."
The aluminium industry in this country lost 145,000 tonnes, almost half of our primary production capacity, through that single closure and some 400 jobs were lost. Also last year, we lost almost a third of secondary aluminium production, which is production from recycled aluminium, with the closure of one of the largest secondary smelters in Cheshire. There are now only two remaining primary smelters, one at Lynemouth in Northumberland and the other in Lochaber in Scotland. Their owners have no plans to close those smelters, but the experience
of production in this country in recent years and precedents elsewhere in Europe are not encouraging, partly because electricity costs in this country are some 20 per cent. higher than they are on the continent.
Competitive energy supply is a critical feature for effective aluminium production. My proposition is that the failure of the Government to recognise that the country needs an efficient and cost-effective energy policy has led to the demise of the nuclear plant at Wylfa, with no adequate replacement to allow production to continue at Anglesey, and the same problem is likely to befall other heavy manufacturing sectors throughout the country. The Government have time and again failed to recognise that we need an effective energy policy. They are therefore putting manufacturing jobs and processes at risk.
In addition to competitive energy markets, the industry relies on proximity to markets. That exists in the UK at the moment. We have an integrated manufacturing capability, in terms of both raw material supplies and end users, but that is in danger of breaking down. Just during the past year, Bridgnorth Aluminium, the company in my constituency, lost its largest raw material supplier at Anglesey, its only direct UK competitor, one major rolling mill engineering supplier in the south of England and its UK partner for aluminium recycling. That means that the chain of industrial activity in which it is a key part is in danger of breaking down.
The loss of raw materials means that the company has two essential options. One is to increase imports, which are readily available. That risks carbon leakage because many of the imports will come from countries where carbon measures are less rigorous than they are in the EU or the UK. The other option is to look to invest in its own cast-house to provide production smelting facilities. It may investigate that. If it were to do so, that is an energy-intensive process, so there is a significant risk that it may not have the electricity supply on a cost-effective basis. By introducing an additional smelting process into its manufacturing regime, it may become less competitive on international markets and it may suffer additional carbon usage, because that process will generate carbon.
Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): I would not wish in any way to diminish the importance of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised in the context of the industry, but does he agree that the problems that it faces underline the importance of the actions that the Government have taken to sustain the construction industry and a market for aluminium products? There is a need to keep programmes such as Building Schools for the Future going to ensure, notwithstanding the problems, that there is still a viable market for that product.
Mr. Dunne: The construction industry is not a customer of either of the two plants in my constituency, but I can see that for other aluminium processors maintaining demand is very important.
Returning to the issue of imports and the impact on the industry cluster and the supply chain, there is no doubt that if we start to lose the integrated chain of markets in this country, there will be a great risk in respect of major investment decisions for other manufacturing companies that are consumers of aluminium products.
Companies that are currently thinking of investing in UK facilities in, for example, the automotive industry, which is close to the heart of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), or the aerospace or packaging industries, may well look elsewhere if the raw material that they rely on from aluminium production moves abroad. There is, therefore, a longer-term risk to a much wider range of aluminium producers.
Carbon leakage is another principal issue. The Government's climate change levy is one of the main culprits in this regard, in addition to their failure to introduce an effective energy policy over so many years. The climate change levy is a tax on energy use, not on carbon emissions. The UK climate change agreement, which was introduced in 2001, is now in its final reporting period, and I wish to say a few words about it. First, the aluminium industry has been at the forefront of achieving carbon reductions through its efforts since 1990. If we compare the carbon emissions targets to which the Government have signed up with the 1990 baseline, we see that the aluminium industry as a whole has reduced its emissions by 39 per cent. That is within 1 per cent. of the target, and it is a remarkable achievement. Yet, as a result of the climate change levy and the Government's proposals, it will be penalised for this success. The goalposts are being moved in such a way that past success is not recognised. Raising the targets on an absolute, rather than a relative, basis makes it more difficult for businesses that have already achieved reductions in carbon emissions to be able to meet the next target without further significant investment. Given the competitive position of the industry and the uncompetitive position of operating with the current energy costs in this country, it is very hard to argue for that.
There is also the issue of the consequences of the Government's introduction in the pre-Budget report of a further element of gold-plating. The Government propose to reduce the climate change levy rebate for companies in energy-intensive industries who are participants in the climate change agreement from 80 to 65 per cent. from 2011. The Aluminium Federation is the trade body for the industry. It has estimated that its 45 member companies who participate in the climate change agreement will see a direct increase in their costs of some £4 million to £5 million a year. That cost will have to be absorbed straight off their bottom line, at a time when they are reeling from the impact of the recession and very low margins apply. This is completely unnecessary. This tax takes this country beyond the measures required under the EU emissions trading scheme. It is purely a tax revenue-raising measure, as perceived by the industry, and it penalises growth in the industry, for the reasons that I have set out. The estimated cost to the manufacturing industry of the measure announced in the pre-Budget report is some £50 million. We will have to wait to see whether the cost emerges in the Budget-if we ever have one. I urge the Minister to make representations to his colleagues that this measure is ill-founded and will merely accelerate the demise of many of the heavy manufacturing industries in this country.
An example of this measure's ineffectiveness in tackling carbon emissions is the Government's own estimate that the introduction of this reduced relief will save
only some 200,000 tonnes of carbon emissions-that works out at a cost of some £250 per tonne. No logical argument can be made that this is being introduced to reduce climate change and emissions, because of the inconsequential reduction involved; this is purely a tax-raising measure.
The answer to this situation is to change the whole basis of levying tax on heavy industrial companies and, as my colleagues have been urging for some years, to use a carbon levy as a replacement for the climate change levy, which has the effect of raising tax and costs, without reducing carbon to the degree that it was stated to do.
I conclude by reminding the House that the Government are failing to recognise the achievements of the aluminium industry in meeting its own carbon reduction targets. They are seeking to gold-plate these targets, raising the goalposts in excess of the EU targets; raising tax, not reducing carbon emissions; and raising those emissions through leakage overseas. Far from helping British manufacturing, the Business Secretary seems more interested in helping businesses overseas and, dare I say it, indirectly some of his friends in Russia, who have significant interests in the aluminium industry in other countries.
10.16 pm
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) for allowing me to speak in this important debate and I congratulate him on securing it. I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party group on the aluminium industry. The industry had a difficult 2009, not least, as he said, in my constituency with the cessation of primary smelting at Anglesey Aluminium by its parent company, Rio Tinto Alcan. That was a massive blow to the local economy and to UK manufacturing in general, because this smelting was a big contributor to the local economy and to primary smelting in Europe and the United Kingdom.
There were a number of complex reasons for this decision; the energy issue was one of the primary concerns that the company had, but several other issues were involved, including internal matters in Rio Tinto Alcan. That international company had moved its production to other operations across the world. The global downturn affected all manufacturing-aluminium, in particular-and it was also a factor.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the link with Wylfa, but I remind him that a new build had been on the agenda for many years under the previous Conservative Government and they aborted the nuclear programme because of complex planning issues and so on. Those had to be dealt with, but I am pleased to say, as a proud supporter of nuclear energy, that Wylfa is on the new identified list for the future. I hope that we can resolve this situation.
The Government gave a lot of support to Anglesey Aluminium over a long period, but in the end it chose not to take the resources available to help it bridge the gap and not to take the substantial financial package that was put in place to help it. The company requested this help and was given it, but unfortunately it decided not to take it. The remaining production at Anglesey Aluminium will be the remelt business, which will employ more than 100 people, but that is a far cry from the 1,350 people who worked at Anglesey Aluminium prior to the 1980s.
The aluminium sector faces a number of challenges, not least from competition from countries such as China. The hon. Gentleman referred to the announcement made by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report of a cut in the climate change levy rebate, which this Government introduced, from 80 to 65 per cent., and that is a big blow for the industry at this delicate juncture. The rebate is part of an agreement whereby intensive energy users, such as the aluminium sector, have cut their emission levels severely and well. It is a success.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to ask the Minister to ask his colleagues to reconsider the matter. There are other ways of meeting the European energy directive and I think that we should perhaps consider coal, oil and gas production rather than the measure that they are talking about. I wish that he would take that on board and not penalise the sector, which is reducing emissions and making environmental and economic sense.
I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, but it is not all doom and gloom in the industry. Demand for aluminium production is projected to double by 2020. New technologies are evolving, with stronger products that use less metal and less energy. Growth in aluminium recycling is reducing both consumption and emissions. My friends in the Aluminium Federation tell me that 75 per cent. of all aluminium ever produced is still in use today. That shows the success in recycling aluminium, which is a very important product. The Minister will be aware that both the car and aviation industries are attracted by aluminium products. The Airbus A380 is 70 per cent. aluminium.
Let me finish, because I understand that the Minister has to reply to the debate in the time allocated. The aluminium industry is relatively young-it was founded in 1866-but the product is evolving, and will do so with continued support from the Government. I acknowledge that they have done an awful lot to help manufacturing-we see this week that manufacturing is bucking the trend and coming out of the global recession far quicker than many other sectors. I ask the Minister to take on board the important issues that the hon. Gentleman and I have raised. I ask him to reconsider the issue raised in the pre-Budget report and to give the aluminium industry and UK manufacturing the support that they deserve so that they can be in the fast lane and so that the UK can be ahead of the game.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |