Session 2014-15
Publications on the internet
CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT
HOUSE OF COMMONS
REPRESENTATIONS
TAKEN BEFORE THE
BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE
BACKBENCH DEBATES
TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER 2014
MR JAMES CLAPPISON and GORDON BIRTWISTLE
MR MIKE WEIR and DR EILIDH WHITEFORD
Evidence heard in Public | Questions 1 - 11 |
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
1. | This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. |
2. | Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. |
3. | Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. |
4. | Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. |
Representations
Taken before the Backbench Business
on Tuesday 9 December 2014
Members present:
Natascha Engel (Chair)
Mr David Amess
John Hemming
Ian Mearns
Mr James Clappison and Gordon Birtwistle made representations.
Chair: Thank you very much. Sorry to keep you waiting.
Mr Clappison: Not at all.
Q1 Chair: This is for a debate about Holocaust memorial day?
Mr Clappison: Yes. It is an application for an hour-and-a-half debate in the week beginning 19 January. The importance of that, of course, is that Holocaust memorial day is the following week-I think it is on Tuesday 27 January. This year, it is a significant Holocaust memorial day, because this is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. That is obviously important in itself, but it is also likely to be the last big commemoration where the event is still in living memory. There are quite a few holocaust survivors who were children or young adults at the time, and who are able to remember those events and to go around telling people about them.
We feel it is important to have the debate, particularly with this year being the 70th anniversary. It is also important because of the continuing problem of extremism, which, sadly, is still with us in parts of Europe. We see it in a number of countries, and we are not entirely immune from it here. In particular, there has been the rise of some extreme parties in Hungary and Greece, for example, with extreme propaganda that might come close to the sort we saw in the 1930s and 1940s. We feel the debate is important for that reason.
Also, unfortunate incidents are still taking place in this country that affect the Jewish community and that are reported by the Community Security Trust. A number of incidents have, sadly, taken place involving very upsetting things. There are also incidents affecting other communities, based on the extremism and hate ideology that characterised Nazism.
Q2 Chair: If it were possible to negotiate with the Government to have the debate on Tuesday 27 January itself, would that be preferable to the Thursday beforehand?
Mr Clappison: I think people will want to take part in events in other places on the 27 January. It is important to have the debate in the run-up to it, rather than on the day itself, so that colleagues can take part.
Chair: Great. That is really helpful.
Mr Clappison: There have been debates in previous years at about the same time that have been well supported by colleagues.
Q3 Chair: Gordon, did you want to add anything?
Gordon Birtwistle: Only to support what James has just said. In Burnley, we have obviously suffered from the rise of the BNP. At one stage, they had nine councillors on our council. Thankfully, they are not there anymore, because we have managed to dispose of them, but they are still around, and they still promote appalling attitudes-not against Jews, but against the Asian community. I do not think we should ever let what happened in the holocaust die. I know that this is the 70th year, but I hope we carry it on for many years. As James said, this is an important milestone, so I think it would be great to have a debate on it.
Q4 Chair: We always have a debate, so that is absolutely fine. Obviously, we will not schedule that until we get back after the new year. This is not something that you need a huge amount of notice for, is it, because people are aware of it?
Mr Clappison: No, I think that is fair enough.
Q5 Chair: We will let you know exactly when. It depends on our allocation of time, obviously.
Mr Clappison: We are keen to have it in the build-up to Holocaust memorial day, to help build up the day itself.
Chair: I totally understand that. Thank you very much.
Mr Clappison: Thank you.
Mr Mike Weir and Dr Eilidh Whiteford made representations.
Q6 Chair: Okay. You have got the impact of the CfD allocation process on offshore wind developments, and it is on a substantive motion.
Mr Weir: Yes. The reason for this is that, as you may know, under the Energy Act 2013 the Government have changed the way in which renewables are funded from the ROCs to the contracts for difference. The way in which it has been done is that there is a certain amount set aside-£235 million-for what they call less established technologies, including offshore wind, wave, tidal, biomass, CHP and Scottish island wind. Unfortunately, what has happened in the first CfD round is that only enough has been allocated for about 800 MW of capacity, which means that one probable offshore wind farm will get the go-ahead.
In Scottish waters, there are many wind farms proposed. A lot of money has been put in by companies preparing the ground for this, and it is also because there is no detail forthcoming on future allocation rounds that they are not sure what is going to happen after this first round, particularly with the election coming up in 2015, which may or may not change Government policy depending on its outcome. It means-this is why there is a degree of urgency in this-that, by the end of January, the Government will make a final decision on the allocation for the offshore wind project. If only one gets the go-ahead and there is no guarantee as to what is going to happen in future years, many of the companies will feel unable to continue investing vast sums of money into preparing for this, with the real danger that the whole offshore wind industry could collapse.
The danger is that it involves more than the industry, because there are great hopes of a manufacturing renewal on the back of that. That affects not only Scotland-it is a particular issue for Scotland because of the number involved-but other parts of the UK, particularly the north of England, which is also seeking to build on this and to try to do it. So there is some urgency in it.
I appreciate that it is only myself and Dr Whiteford on the sheet, but we have spoken to other MPs and we are speaking to others. We have got at the moment four or five who have indicated that they would wish to take part, subject to us making clear that it is not only a Scottish issue-we have more interest in the Scottish angle, obviously-but a UK-wide one.
Chair: I think Ian has got a question for you on that.
Q7 Ian Mearns: Obviously, I think it is a fundamentally important issue, but from our perspective we need to have demonstrated demand for a debate from a cross-section of MPs. Therefore, if you have got Members who are saying that they are interested, can we have the list of names, please?
Mr Weir: I can give you a verbal list, or I can send you a list of the ones we have got at the moment.
Q8 Ian Mearns: Just send the list in, so that it can substantiate the application.
Mr Weir: We appreciate that, and we are trying to get more MPs interested. This is an issue that has just come up, and there is a certain urgency, which is why we have brought it forward.
Q9 Chair: That is absolutely fine.
Dr Whiteford: It is worth saying that the issue will affect all the projects in the third round of applications. Only two of those are in Scotland, and there are seven in total. I have a particular interest because my constituency is one of those that stands to gain a great deal from this, but similarly we could also lose out quite badly if we do not get it. However, I think the issue is a much wider one for coastal communities that are seeking to tackle the longer-term energy issues associated with renewables.
Q10 Ian Mearns: I just think it is important-undoubtedly-and there are coastal communities around the north-east of England who are particularly interested in this. With the north-east research centre at Blyth, I am pretty sure Ronnie Campbell would be interested. In terms of the wind generation industry overall and the manufacturing industry, which it affects, it is vitally important. I accept all of that. I think it is an important issue, but we need to see it demonstrated in terms of names.
Chair: In terms of the numbers, it is not just the people who are interested in the debate but the people who are going to take part in the debate. That is purely a scheduling issue so that we can be confident that you will have a debate for three hours, if that is what we allocate. We recommend 15 people on a cross-party basis. If you can get 15 people to sign up to say that they will take part in a debate, we will look at scheduling it. Send that over to the Clerk. On the global e-mail address list we are just "Backbench Business Committee" so you can just send it to that.
John Hemming: There are also the alternatives of a 90-minute debate or a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall, which requires a smaller number of speakers. They don’t have a motion but, because a motion has no binding force on the Executive, it isn’t necessarily the issue-you can still make the same points. You need to get the names in, but it might be worth considering whether you would be willing to accept 90 minutes or three hours in Westminster Hall with a Minister answering-you would still have the Minister answering.
Chair: In fact, if you are saying that this has just come up but has a level of urgency, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot allocate you a 90-minute slot in Westminster Hall for the week beginning 5 January, so it would be the morning of Tuesday 6 January, which is DECC. If you send us the list of names, we can also table the substantive motion, but the 90-minute debate would give you a chance to get people’s interest going.
John Hemming: The other thing is that we look for names on both sides of the House.
Dr Whiteford: There is a degree of urgency about it in that I believe one of the key decisions relating to this is due to be taken in January. My worry is that, if that decision comes out, it could jeopardise the investment decisions that some of these companies make in future. From our point of view, it is very important that this comes before the House some time in January.
Q11 Chair: Why don’t you take that 90-minute slot on 6 January and follow it up? If you bring us the list of names, we can schedule something after that.
Dr Whiteford: Sure.
Mr Amess: Early Christmas present.
Dr Whiteford: Thank you very much.
Chair: Thanks very much.