HMRC Self-Assessment Helpline

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The reprieve is welcome, but if we are to keep these helplines open, can we at least resource them properly and make them work? I spoke to a chartered accountant in my constituency this morning, and he tells me that when he recently phoned HMRC with a complex query on behalf of a client, it took 40 minutes to get an answer. When the phone was answered, there was an acknowledgment of the problem. He suggested that the answer might lie in his client’s wife’s data being incorrectly ordered, at which point he was told that the staff were allowed to handle only one case per call, and that he would have to hang up and phone back, with another 40-minute wait for an answer. Surely that is no way to treat a customer.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I am happy to raise it with HMRC.

National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us that update from the Treasury Committee about what the Chancellor has been saying. Again, we can see the Chancellor being reckless by talking about merging national insurance with income tax without having a second thought for what impact that would have on hard-pressed taxpayers, particularly pensioners. Pensioners do not currently pay national insurance on their earnings and would be hit by a tax increase as a result of national insurance and income tax being merged. That is another example of how reckless these plans are, and how reckless it is for Treasury Ministers to refuse to stand up and explain how their plans would be funded.

The public deserves to know. If Ministers vote against our new clause or they refuse to come clean, then the British people will have it confirmed, yet again, that the Conservatives cannot be trusted with the economy, public finances or the finances of households across our country.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Evans—surely it is long overdue that it should be Sir Nigel, but we will go with Mr Evans for today.

I stand to move new clause 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Hon. Members will see that the effect of new clause 2 would be fairly short in its compass. It would compel the Treasury to report to this House its forecasts of the change to the number of people who are set to pay national insurance contributions as a result of the thresholds for payment remaining frozen until 2028, instead of increasing in line with the consumer prices index, which would be the case otherwise. The Chancellor and other Ministers have spoken today about the pride the Government take in what they are doing. In the interests of transparency, the Government should have no difficulty accepting new clause 2. I am sure it is merely an inadvertent omission that those measures are not part of the Bill already.

It is apparent that comments made by the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and others about the idea of abolishing national insurance altogether have started a debate, as we have seen this afternoon. It is a substantial commitment to make—£46 billion—and we do not yet know where that money would come from. That is maybe not the novelty that it used to be, certainly before the mini-Budget. However, it offers us an opportunity to think a little bit about the nature of national insurance as a tax, because it is quite distinct in its composition and operation.

In practical terms, functionally, national insurance is more or less like any other tax, in as much as money is paid into the Exchequer and fills the coffers, and then is spent as the Government or Governments see fit—in relation to health, policing, transport, Ministers’ legal fees or whatever else it is going to be.

As a matter of intent and purpose, however, national insurance is identifiably different from the other taxes we pay. More than any other levy, it is the symbol of our shared obligations—what we owe each other as a society and as communities in support throughout our lives. The point of national insurance is that we pool and share resources geographically and generationally. We pay our stamp on each payslip, trusting that, when the time comes for us to retire, someone else will continue to pay taxes that will fund our pensions.

Let us remember that the roots of this tax are in Lloyd George’s Budget, and that the introduction of national insurance came with the introduction of the pension. That is why we have the legacy of the link between national insurance and pensions, which was pointed out by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in an intervention. That is significant. These are matters that must be clarified before we undertake a change of this sort.

At the heart of any healthy liberal democratic society, there is the idea that we have lasting obligations to one another. We have obligations to those we know, to those we do not know, to generations that are older than us, and to those who are yet to be born. We can be bound by policies with which we disagree, and sometimes we must pay taxes for things that we dislike or that we feel we do not need. That is the system in which the national insurance contribution has a demonstrably significant and different impact than other taxes. It is part of the tapestry of government and public life in this country.

This is perhaps just pulling at a thread, but the Minister and, indeed, people in all parts of the House would be well advised to consider exactly what they may be unravelling by pulling at this thread. Full transparency from the Government on the effect of freezing national insurance contributions in the way that has been proposed should be an important part of this debate as it proceeds.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much. Can someone from the Liberal Democrats inform the Chair who their tellers will be, as their amendment has been selected for a separate Division?

Coastal Tourism and Hospitality: Fiscal Support

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate. By accident or design, Members have spoken about a range of communities although there have been a number of common threads.

I first remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a partner in the firm that runs my family farm, which also includes holiday let accommodation. In many ways, that is a living example of the changes and opportunities that the visitor economy brings to communities such as mine in Orkney and Shetland, and doubtless to those in other coastal and island communities around the country.

Tourism is of enormous importance to communities such as ours. I listened with interest, as always, to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who described the ripple effect of dropping a stone in the water. The stone in this case is the visitor economy. The benefits come very obviously to those who operate the hotels, the bed and breakfasts and the self-catering accommodation, and they go out to those who are able to work part time as self-employed tour guides, for example, and those who have jobs servicing that accommodation—they go out and out. Tourism may be a useful add-on to a conventional business. The hon. Gentleman said that a number of farm businesses in rural and coastal communities have some sort of tourism add-on—perhaps seasonal. At the end of the day, it is what they can show to their accountant at the end of the year that matters.

The way in which our rural and island coastal communities have got up and done things for themselves is an inspiring story. The real beauty of it is that, by and large, these are the self-employed or small businesses—medium-sized enterprises at most—and the money they earn and pay out stays in the communities. It goes into local shops and post offices. It allows families to live in those areas, because their children can go to local schools. We can keep local doctors, services and banks; the story continues. There is no single silver bullet for these economies, but tourism is an important part that makes the whole thing more feasible.

There are a number of significant challenges. They are not, strictly speaking, fiscal, but they are significant, given the way that they hold back island communities. In Scotland, we have an ageing ferry fleet. For island communities, that has been problematic for the past few years, and sadly it is only getting worse. The availability of labour in the local community causes real difficulty, especially in a seasonal economy. People moving into work in island communities need accommodation at a time when people are coming to stay in the same accommodation, so housing availability in our island and coastal communities is a significant issue, and Government-led—public sector —provision could make a real difference to businesses’ ability to grow.

The regulatory burden unfortunately seems to get greater every year. In Scotland, we now have the short-term let licensing scheme. It will be interesting to contrast how that works with the way in which things are now being done south of the border through a planning mechanism. I have not yet seen figures for it, but my sense is that we may see, especially in the smaller outer isles in Orkney and Shetland, a lot of people walking away from the provision of bed and breakfasts or self- catering accommodation as a consequence of the licensing regime. It is expensive for people to comply with, especially if they are away from the centre of the population. Goodness knows it is difficult enough for someone operating a business in Kirkwall and Lerwick to get work done, but if they are operating in one of the outer isles—in Sanday, Stronsay or North Ronaldsay, or perhaps in Unst, Yell or Fetlar in Shetland—that becomes yet another extra burden and cost. The farther the accommodation is from the centre, inevitably the fewer weeks in the year it can be let and the fewer people coming to stay in the community. Again, at the end of the day, is it worth it? The balance is sadly tipping in the opposite direction, towards saying no.

Those are some of the challenges, but at the end of the day, these people are self-starting and entrepreneurial and do a lot to bring economic growth to their communities, and there are certain levers that the Treasury could use to help them grow their businesses. The difference between the fiscal levers we can pull and the other grant-aided incentives and opportunities is that fiscal levers give people more opportunity to decide what is best for them and their business, rather than having to design their business to conform with the various requirements of a grant application or discount scheme.

There is a real opportunity for the Government to add value and opportunity to tourism and visitor-economy businesses in our island and coastal communities. The single most important change I hear advocated by those businesses, time and again, is the one touched on by the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby)—the reduction in value added tax. It is rare in any sector that we hear such consistency in message. We have seen a small example of that already with the reduction to 5% during the covid pandemic. It would be interesting to know what analysis the Treasury has done of the tax take in that time—albeit everybody was operating in a much-reduced market.

I come back to my experience from my time in government, when we reduced the duty on spirits. We did so—for only the second time in history, I think—in the expectation of a significant cut in revenue. In fact it produced a significant increase in revenue to the Treasury. I cannot remember the exact figures of the tax take, but I think we expected a £600 million decrease and actually got a £800 million increase. That shows what is possible sometimes when we reduce the burden on industry and business and allow them the opportunity to use that extra cash to grow their business. I strongly suspect—indeed, significant research has been done on this by some of the big consultancies; Ernst and Young springs most readily to mind—that the same would be possible for the visitor economy in our island and coastal communities. That being the case, at a time when we want to grow the economy and are relying on that to spread the benefits of growth throughout the country instead of hoarding them here in London, surely that is something that must commend itself to the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I would be happy to ask one of my colleagues to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss why freeports are not appropriate in his part of Leicestershire.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish counterpart on farm budgets for the financial year 2024-25.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)]

A very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The Government guarantee to maintain the £2.4 billion annual budget for farmers across the UK for every year of this Parliament. As agriculture is devolved, it is ultimately for the Scottish Government to decide how to allocate that money to farming in Scotland.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister will be aware of the frustration that is felt by many farmers and crofters in Scotland that the £33 million that was given to the Scottish Government for a specific purpose as part of the Bew review has been deferred hitherto. What will she do in future to ensure that where money is given for the express purpose of supporting Scottish agriculture, it is in fact used for that purpose?

[Laura Trott]

The right hon. Member raises an excellent question. The SNP Government are yet to clarify when this ringfenced money will be returned. I hope they will do so this afternoon at the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

14. What fiscal steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support households in fuel poverty.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)]

The Government have taken significant action to help households with rising energy prices and the costs of living by providing one of the largest packages of support in Europe, totalling £94 billion.

[Mr Carmichael]

Orkney and Shetland have the worst rates of fuel poverty of anywhere in the country. Provisional figures show that, for last winter, both Orkney and Shetland recorded record levels of winter mortality. In his new office, will the Minister bring his colleagues together from across Government to hear from agencies such as THAW—Tackling Household Affordable Warmth —in Orkney that are working to tackle fuel poverty, because if we can tackle fuel poverty in Orkney and Shetland, we can tackle fuel poverty?

[Gareth Davies]

We are incredibly sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, who have suffered a very difficult time. That is why we introduced the energy price guarantee, which will remain in place until March 2024 as a safety net. We continue to engage with lots of stakeholders and we are very happy to include the ones he suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware of what is in our Financial Services and Markets Bill, and I can update the House by saying that the Government have tabled an amendment to protect free access to cash withdrawal and deposit facilities. I would be happy to meet her to discuss her constituency’s needs.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T8. I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Recent Government pronouncements relating to food security have been welcome, but if they are to be meaningful then farmers and crofters need certainty about the future of Government support and, critically, the amount of money that will be available to fund that. Will the Chancellor tell us when he will engage with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations about the size of the budget that will be available? In the meantime, will he meet with me and the National Farmers Union Scotland?

[John Glen]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the farming support payment is ported to Scotland and operates on a different basis because it is devolved. We have committed to the sum of £2.4 billion for the duration of this Parliament and there are a number of schemes where the uptake is now increasing. I will continue to engage with my colleagues at DEFRA as those schemes develop further.

Funding for Major Infrastructure Projects

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing today’s very timely debate. It strikes at many of the issues that we face in politics at the moment—issues that must be dealt with over something longer than the current electoral cycle. One of the failings of politics and the frustrations with Government that we have all experienced over the years is that we are all focused on the next four or five-yearly electoral event. For some infrastructure projects—we have touched on HS2, and I will speak about some that are closer to home for me than that will ever be—we need a more strategic approach.

When it is at its best, the Treasury is very good at doing the strategic, but often it becomes a bit hidebound by its own rules, and it lacks a little of the creativity that we require. For those of us in the northern isles, the most important infrastructure that we have is our transport infrastructure, in particular our ferries. We have the ferries that go between Orkney and Shetland and Scotland—or mainland Scotland, as some people like to call it—and the ferries that go between the different isles that make up Orkney and Shetland. What brings me to the Chamber today is the community discussion of those internal ferry services in recent years.

Earlier in the sitting, I was pleased to welcome the announcement of funding of £26 million for a replacement Fair Isle ferry—a significant amount of money, but that money is critical to preserving one of the smallest and most economically fragile communities to be found anywhere in these islands. The geography of Shetland is such that, apart from Fair Isle, Foula and others, the islands are pretty close together on a map. To our mind, it makes perfect sense for those islands to be joined not by ferry services, which are subject to weather delays, breakdowns and all the rest of it, but by a series of short tunnels—fixed links. In recent years, the debate on the islands has very much headed in that direction. We look with some envy at what our Nordic cousins in the Faroe Islands have done by linking their islands together and at the west of Norway, where parts of the mainland are linked by tunnel, as indeed are some of the smaller islands.

As a consequence of those discussions, which have been happening in the community for some time, my colleague Beatrice Wishart MSP and I set up a series of town hall meetings in the summer of last year. Obviously there are no towns, so they were not in town halls; they were in community halls and church halls in Fetlar, Unst, Yell, Whalsay, Out Skerries and Bressay. In an age in which we are always told that people are uninterested in politics and will not turn out for a public meeting, about 250 people from these small communities came out over the course of a week to offer their views on what fixed links could do for their communities.

A tiny number of people demurred, but the overwhelming consensus was that in our communities the construction of fixed links could be absolutely transformative for the design and delivery of public services. Keeping GPs based in an island community of a few hundred people is a big ask, for example. Then there is the creation and ongoing maintenance of schools in those communities, which are constantly shifting.

I was born and brought up in Islay; I grew up there in the ’60s, ’70s and early ’80s. In those days, one GP served our end of the island. If he went fishing for the day and someone had an accident, they had to wait until he came back from his fishing trip. In the 21st century, thankfully, that is not how the NHS works. We need a wider range of clinical practitioners, and people expect different standards from those practitioners. Maintaining public services of that sort in such communities becomes ever more difficult and challenging for us.

At every meeting we heard the same story. Overwhelmingly, the view was that young people wanted to stay in the outer isles in Shetland, but were forced to leave by the nature of the opportunities for employment, health and education for their family and were desperate to return. If these people stayed in our island communities, they would contribute to their economic growth. They would be able to found, run and grow businesses or maintain businesses that had been run by their family for generations, keeping children in the schools and keeping money going through local contractors into post offices, shops and all the rest of it.

For the bigger economic development projects, getting products from the outer isles to the market will always require at least one ferry service, but there is no reason it should need two. I think of businesses such as Cooke Aquaculture, which has a processing station in Mid Yell: it has to construct an entire staff rota on the availability of ferry services to get its product from Mid Yell down to Lerwick before it catches the ongoing ferry. That is how the infrastructure provided has a very direct impact on one of the most important food-producing businesses in my constituency.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I do not know too much about ferry services, but I think the point that my right hon. Friend is making is that we cannot just look at one product in isolation. The cost benefits are wider, in the round.

[Mr Carmichael]

Absolutely. I am horrified that, having been a colleague of mine, my hon. Friend says she does not know much about ferry services—she has clearly not been listening! However, the point she makes is a good one.

This is where Treasury rules and funding come into play. If we are looking at ferries, for example, we look for a pay-down over a 20-year or possibly 30-year period. A tunnel will be several times that, but Treasury rules constantly push people towards a like-for-like replacement. They seem to lack the flexibility and creativity necessary to provide the services that will maintain the economic and social viability of such communities in the longer term.

There is also a continuing role for EU—sorry, for Treasury—funding.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

You were right the first time.

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, I am always right the first time.

There is a continuing role for the Treasury in relation to funding, because a significant proportion of the ferries that we are now looking to replace were purchased and commissioned in the first place with a proportion of EU funding. That funding now sits with the Treasury, so although transport as a whole is devolved, there is still an obvious and strong role for the Treasury.

Following on from the Tunnel Vision roadshows that we ran in the summer of last year, as we suggested, communities set up tunnel action groups to decide how they could make the case. The case for a big infrastructure project like that, for a small community, is always that it should basically be designed by the community itself. I am happy to tell the House that the Unst and Yell tunnel action groups, working together, have already obtained pledges in the region of £100,000 towards the £200,000 that they think might be necessary to get the first stage of a feasibility study.

The project will have not just local strategic importance, but national significance. Unst will probably be the earliest and most effective—possibly the only—spaceport in the United Kingdom that is capable of doing vertical as opposed to horizontal launches. The people behind the SaxaVord spaceport in Unst tell me every week that that will be critical to their ability to exploit to the maximum the potential of the project in which they are investing.

There is also the question of the carbon cost. In the medium to long term, tunnels will always be much more carbon-efficient than ferries, with respect both to running costs and to ongoing replacements.

The Treasury has a pot of money that is currently set aside as a consequence of the wish of the last Prime Minister but one, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), to build a bridge from south-west Scotland to Northern Ireland. I can promise the Minister that there are none of the problems with unexploded ordnance that befell that particular project. The money still sits there in a ringfenced pot, so if the Minister wants to stand up and give me a commitment to fund tunnels for Shetland, I will be delighted to take it.

What we are looking for at the moment is a bit of willingness from the Treasury to engage with our community and allow us the opportunity to make the contribution to the rest of the United Kingdom that we have always made and that we know we can continue to make. Might the Minister agree to meet me and a delegation from the Shetland communities and the Shetland Islands Council to hear their intentions and hear what they want to do to make this happen? A small amount of Treasury money at this stage, to establish the case with scientific and technical rigour in a way that as a community we may be unable to do for ourselves, could be transformative in future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to begin summing up the debate, and it is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I commend the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on her very well informed introduction to the debate. I heard her say that she did not win the ballot for this debate, but was asked to hold it later. That may be a lesson for us all: losing one vote does not prevent you from having another go later.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) gave a very interesting examination of the technical and organisational factors needed to get a project right, and to make sure that future projects go well. One thing that has struck me in this place is that when a big project goes wrong, nothing gets learned. If the Department of Health and Social Care has a project, the Department for Transport does not learn anything from the mistakes, so it makes exactly the same mistakes. We could fill a library with the things that we could learn from problems with Ministry of Defence contracting, for example. There does not seem to be any process for making sure that lessons learned are remembered and transferred across the whole organisation.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) gave a very interesting speech. I know a bit about Orkney and Shetland. I have not been to Shetland yet, but I have been to Orkney and hope to go back. He reminded us that we often think that a lot of the public are not interested in politics, but when they understand the impact that an issue will have on their life, they are interested. If the public are not interested, it is maybe more of a comment on politicians, who manage to turn the public off. It is certainly not the public’s problem if the way we do politics causes people to turn off.

I like the right hon. Member’s comments about the GP service on Islay, because several years ago two of my best friends spent two summers on the neighbouring island of Jura, providing cover for the only GP on the island; he was not allowed off the island unless he got cover. The right hon. Member reminded us that for a number of very remote communities in these islands, and sometimes for communities that are not all that remote, the realities of life can be very different from how they appear in this place, and possibly from the way they appear to Ministers or civil servants ensconced in their fancy buildings in Whitehall and around Westminster.

The right hon. Member mentioned the inflexibility of Treasury rules. I do not understand how we can possibly run a 25 to 30-year contract on an annual and cash-limited budget; it just cannot be done. It produces incentives to do stupid things. We have seen that with HS2. He also mentioned the very strong part that the EU played in the previous round of procuring ferries for the islands in his constituency. Yes, the Scottish Government have attracted, and probably deserve, criticism for their record on some of the ferry procurement that we have done in the past. Nobody gets it right all the time. Interestingly, the right hon. Member’s comment seems to show that the people who we were told were remote, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels could sometimes get closer to delivering what people in our communities wanted than the decision makers down here. Perhaps that is because the EU knew that it was sometimes remote, so it did not think that it knew what was best. Most of the funding programmes that it ran had to be managed by the Scottish Government, mostly in partnership with local authorities or other local organisations. Although not everybody agreed with every project that was approved, people could at least point to strong evidence that the project was born in the community and funded from elsewhere, rather than having been invented to fit a set of criteria that were often not relevant to the community in which the project was delivered.

[Mr Carmichael]

I bridle slightly at the hon. Gentleman’s use of “remote”. I am always being told that I live in a remote community, which means that I have to define the place I call home in relation to somewhere else. Surely the point is not about the distance between Brussels and the place where the projects were delivered; it is about understanding that the European Union enabled communities to do something for themselves. That is a very different model from the one in Edinburgh and London these days. Viewed from Shetland, both those places are pretty remote.

[Peter Grant]

I take the right hon. Member’s point. Let me clarify that I do not measure remoteness by how far people are from this place or anywhere else. It is arguable that parts of the right hon. Member’s constituency are more remote from each other than they need to be, because the infrastructure is not there, so a journey of a few miles can be a lot more difficult than it needs to be. The important point is that far too much infrastructure spending in Scotland is not done according to the priorities of the Scottish Government, local authorities, or the Scottish people. The fairy-tale vision of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), of a bridge to Ireland is a good example of that. I have not heard anybody in my constituency or elsewhere in Scotland say that that was a priority.

Too many funded schemes in Scotland are the priority of somebody in London who holds no mandate whatsoever in my constituency or anywhere else in Scotland. The criteria are set by somebody in London, sometimes having invited comments from the devolved nations or local authorities; most of the time, they ignore any comments that come in. The allocation of money does not have any rational basis, or follow any measure of need or priority. For example, the UK Government promised that the shared prosperity fund would fully replace the EU structural funding that Scotland lost after we were dragged out of the European Union against our will. Over three years, we expected to get about £549 million in structural funding; through the shared prosperity fund, we are getting £212 million. We are losing £337 million, more than half of what we would have had.

Other Government investment schemes, such as levelling up, were supposed to be based on a prioritisation of need, but somehow that prioritisation of need meant that the Prime Minister’s constituency got more than the whole of Glasgow. Of course, Glasgow got nothing. The Prime Minister’s constituency got exactly the same as mine, which is one of the most seriously deprived areas in the United Kingdom. The towns fund was the same. On the face of it, that fund was based on some kind of objective assessment of need, but everybody knows that it was more about who the sitting MP was, or which party hoped they might win the seat at the next election. The way that the criteria are set is not in the interests of the communities that the fund is supposed to serve. The funding allocation is not about need or what is right; it is about what suits the party of Government.

Almost 20 years ago, my very good friend and then fellow member of the council, Michael Woods, discovered that the then Labour administration in Fife Council had a secret plot to close the award-winning sports centre, the Fife sports institute in Glenrothes, and Kirkcaldy swimming pool. Thanks to Michael’s determination, that plan was abandoned. In 2007, Michael and I were both re-elected to the council, formed a joint administration with the Liberal Democrats, and immediately put in place plans to not demolish those two institutions, but replace them, and make them brand new. Six years after we were elected, we delivered a new sports centre in Glenrothes. Sadly, Michael did not live to see it happen, but the Michael Woods sports and leisure centre remembers that it would not be there had it not been for Michael. That is what can happen if we have the political leadership that knows what needs to be done, understands what communities need, and is prepared to deliver it. We had to devise a new delivery model to make the sports centre happen. I note the comment from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. If that delivery model had not worked, it would not have been the fault of the delivery model; it would have been our fault. It was our responsibility to set out a delivery mechanism that would work.

If we want to look at something on a bigger scale, in 2007, when the SNP was elected to the Scottish Government for the first time, it inherited a Forth Road bridge that was in danger of becoming unsafe and being closed. Some 10 years after, the SNP having inherited no plans whatsoever, the new Queensferry crossing was opened to the public. It was a £1.3 billion investment, let it be noted. The SNP did that without putting the albatross around their neck of a private finance initiative, and the crossing is toll-free, as are all the bridges, motorways and roads in Scotland.

Compare that with HS2. In 2009, the Government set their delivery company a budget of between £31 billion and £36 billion. By 2013, almost exactly 10 years ago, the National Audit Office was already warning about problems. We are now looking at a cost of somewhere between £72 billion and £98 billion. The cost of a single railway station at Euston has increased by £2.2 billion, and construction on that station has stopped for two years. How can one Government—or one series of Governments—get one project so catastrophically wrong so often, with no one being held to account?

Lack of accountability is a significant problem. We could ask what has happened to the 40 new hospitals; maybe some of them will happen, but there certainly will not be 40 of them. We seem to be living in a time when “a long-term investment strategy” means “to get us through the next election”. We are clearly living in a time when “priority areas of need” are marginal seats, and 40 new hospitals means, if we are lucky, half of that number—most of them will never be built. Partly due to covid and partly due to the self-inflicted damage of Brexit, construction project costs are rising, often faster than the official rate of inflation. Contractors and subcontractors are finding it harder and harder to recruit the skilled workers they need, because in that industry a lot of the skills are international. The market is global, and Britain is making itself a less attractive place for overseas workers to come to and work. That is not just because of Brexit, but because of how it has been seen to be implemented by the Government.

We need a complete change in the way that the Government allocate and manage the funding for their major infrastructure projects. The hon. Member for Bath was a fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee for a while; I have not seen any evidence, in the reports that come to the Committee, that lessons have been learned. I would love to be able to say that during my time on the Committee—or even in Parliament—I have seen evidence that this Government are becoming better at managing large-scale projects. I cannot say that; if anything, I would say that they are becoming worse.

We have a Government and a governing party that are becoming more inward looking, more concentrated on looking after their own interests, less willing to face up to the decisions that need to be taken, and, frankly, less caring about the impact on communities all over these islands of their failure to deliver the kind of infrastructure that a modern western democracy should be allowed to take for granted.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

We have had strong support from public health groups for the differential duty, because the evidence shows that is healthier to drink in a social environment than privately. That is another significant benefit.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

This is a popular area of the debate. I give way.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think the Minister has a sound case in relation to what the Government have done on beer duty. What is less clear, however, is why they have chosen to treat spirits so differently. Spirits are also an important part of the on trade. What will the impact be on the spirits trade from the differential that the Minister has now baked into the duty system?

[James Cartlidge]

There are spirits that will benefit from the differential—not spirits served from what I think are called optics, but spirits served on tap. There are mixers served on tap that will benefit from a more generous differential duty. On spirits, I am more than happy to set out further detail when I respond to the relevant amendments, because I think they are specifically focused on Scotch whisky, and I understand the concerns there.

I just want to finish my point on our Brexit pubs guarantee. Just to underline what we are doing, we are giving pubs a new permanent competitive advantage. We are levelling the playing field against supermarkets. Following the difficult times that pubs have had with the pandemic and higher energy costs, that hopefully gives them a new narrative for their communities with more positive times to look forward to ahead. That is what we want for our pubs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) said, they are so important for our communities and our economy. We continue to do everything possible to back the great British pub.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Alistair Carmichael.

[Mr Carmichael]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor. It is perhaps not a novelty to see you back in the Chair, but it is still a great pleasure none the less. I am delighted to serve with you in control.

I rise to speak to amendment 7, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. In doing so, I should indicate at this stage that it is my intention to divide the Committee and establish opinion on it. The effect of amendment 7 would be to freeze the level of duty on the production of spirits. The Minister kept saying these are Scotch whisky amendments. He maybe knows me too well, but I would readily concede that many other spirits will be affected by this, and they are just as important. I think the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) will speak to her amendments, which do relate specifically to Scotch whisky, but I have had discussions with her, and she tells me that SNP Members are in fact minded to support our amendment, instead of pursuing their own. She will doubtless speak for herself, as she always does, later in the debate.

When we consider that 70% of the gin produced in this country is, in fact, produced in Scotland—my constituency has no fewer than four gin distilleries, and we find that situation replicated across Scotland—the impact of rises in duty are not just going to be felt by areas that produce Scotch whisky. We have also seen a number of distilleries appearing in recent times—a much smaller number, but it is significant none the less—producing rum. So it is important that we have a coherent strategy for the excise duty on these products. The difficulty I have with what I hear from the Treasury Minister is that it is difficult to discern exactly what the Government are trying to achieve in this Budget.

Scotch whisky in particular is very important to the UK as part of our manufacturing base. Indeed, it is an enormously important part of our export portfolio. It is also critical for many of the most economically fragile communities that can be found around the highlands and islands of Scotland. I was born and brought up on Islay, and people will know the importance of the whisky industry, and in recent years the growth of whisky tourism to that economy. In my constituency we have Highland Park and Scapa. Occasionally other interests are declared, but we still have only two producing distilleries. They are very important to our local community, not just in relation to the jobs they provide directly, but because of the spin-offs—the visitor centre, the merchandising, and the visitors that those distilleries bring to the community. Whisky tourism is enormously important, and it is it enormously important that the whisky industry has confidence that the Government are on their side. I am afraid that the signals we have seen from this Government in recent months have been, if I am to be kind to them, mixed at best.

The Chancellor was right to say in December that there would be a freeze on duty. We welcomed that, as I am sure did others. Three months later, to then turn around and whack a duty increase on spirits in the region of something just north of 10%, makes us wonder what the Government are trying to achieve. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland, along with Danny Alexander, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, we argued successfully for a 2% duty cut. In 2015, the Red Book of the day said that that would bring with it a reduction in the amount of duty received and revenue brought in, but in point of fact we brought in more revenue with a lower level of duty than had been the case before it was cut.

If we are trying to do something that will bring in more money to the Treasury, surely a duty freeze, at the very least, should be on offer. Indeed, Treasury data illustrates the point well, because a recent history of cuts and duty freezes has actually had a beneficial effect on revenue brought in. For some reason, we now seem determined to introduce a duty increase that will have an inflationary impact, and for some of the most economically fragile communities in the country that will have the effect of stymying growth.

The position laid out by the Minister on sales of beer was exceptionally interesting. He will be aware that spirits account for one third of the serves of alcohol consumed in this country, but less than one fifth of the units consumed. On the other hand, beer has 60% of the units consumed but accounts for less than 50% of the serves. It is clear that the effect of this measure will be inflationary and have a detrimental effect on the economic growth that we are all supposed to be pursuing.

The Chief Medical Officer tells us that we should safely consume 14 units per week—I think I have read this correctly—per week. If we are to consume 14 units of cider, we pay £1.13 in tax. If we consume 14 units of wine, we pay £3.36 in tax. But if we consume 14 units of spirits, we pay £4.06 in tax. To put it another way, Scotch whisky, and spirits as a whole, are taxed 256% higher than cider, and 16% higher than wine.

It was presumably for that reason that the Secretary of State for Scotland is reported in The Scotsman as having argued against it. This was not some source quoted as saying that, but the Secretary of State himself. He said that he was disappointed the Chancellor acted in the way he did. I think we can all very much share the disappointment of the Secretary of State for Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt, I did let him know that I would be referring to him in the course of my speech. Our real disappointment, however, is that, having publicly disagreed with the Government on the matter, I have a strong suspicion that if it is put to a Division he will be in the other Lobby. It is all very well to wring your hands, but if, when the moment comes and the Division bells ring, you are not prepared to do what you know is right for such an important industry in Scotland in so many of our communities, then I feel we are, as politicians, failing in our duty to our constituents and those whom we seek to serve.

We heard a lot from the Minister about the harmonisation of duties, but the House has heard the truth of the matter. The position in relation to on-sales consumption of beer will widen the gap. It simply makes no sense. If the Minister can answer no other question when he comes to respond, can he answer this: what strategy are the Government seeking to deliver by bringing forward a duty increase in excess of 10%? I do not see it. It flies in the face of the Treasury’s own data and contradicts it. It is difficult to understand what the purpose of it is, other than simply an attitude that says, “Well, you’ve had it good for a few years now, so we’re going to treat you differently and it’s time for you to take some of the pain.” An industry as important as the production of spirits deserves rather better consideration from the Treasury.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I rise in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who speaks for my constituents as much as he does his own.

I want to make two simple points. First, the distilleries in my constituency—I could name them all, but I have done that before in this place—are part and parcel of each community in which they are based, and they are important to the people in those communities. They see them as their own. As my right hon. Friend said, the jobs they provide in some of the most sparsely populated and economically fragile parts of Scotland are absolutely crucial. Inver House, a company that owns two distilleries in my constituency, Balblair in Edderton and Old Pulteney in Wick, sponsors the Wick Gala each year. As something that epitomises the culture of Caithness, I would honestly recommend that all right hon. and hon. Members come to Wick and see the Wick Gala—it is something they will not forget. That company is a part of it and makes it happen, which is incredibly important. In my own home town of Tain, Glenmorangie, now owned by the French company Louis Vuitton, has for a number of years pretty well paid for the Tain highland games. Again, I say to Members: come see them and enjoy. So the distilleries are a part of the community and what they do is crucial for the community. It is about rural jobs in sparse areas.

The second point I want to make to those on the Treasury Bench is about levelling up. Those are not the words I would have chosen, but it is a good concept to take parts of the UK that have lost out in the race and bring them up—giving them a leg up—to be equal to the richer parts of the UK. By definition, the areas where there are distilleries are very often some of the more hard-up parts of the Scottish highlands and of Scotland. If Government Members want to go about levelling up, they need to get into the parts of Britain that need help.

[Mr Carmichael]

As my hon. Friend says, these are often some of the more hard-up areas of the country, but the truth of the matter is that down the years they have contributed enormously to the GDP of this country and they have the potential to do more. We are not looking for any special treatment. We are not looking for any favours or handouts. All we are looking for is a fair crack of the whip.

[Jamie Stone]

That is an extremely valuable point. I would bolt on to it that we have new distilleries starting up. In John O’Groats, there is a brand new one called 8 Doors. These enterprising local Caithness people have done it off their own bat. To get tourists to go to John O’Groats, we have 8 Doors, which has done it along the coast of Caithness. We have Wolfstone—I think I have that right.

[Mr Carmichael]

Wolfburn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

As I mentioned, we have consistently raised concerns about the Government’s U-turns on the issue. We have scrutinised them and put forward recommendations, which the hon. Member will hear us talk about in further detail in the Public Bill Committee.

It is important that today the Minister lays out what measures the Government will take to support the sectors most affected by the duty changes, as well as what consideration the Treasury has given to the potentially inflationary impact of the increases. The explanatory notes to the Bill state:

“The commencement of changes to approvals will be announced at a later date.”

Perhaps the Minister could give some certainty to businesses by fleshing out some further detail today.

Clause 50 and schedule 8 set out measures for a new draught relief that will provide a reduced rate of duty on qualifying draught products. Clause 51 sets out the requirement that qualifying draught products be under 8.5% ABV and be packaged in containers that hold at least 20 litres and are designed to connect to a dispensing system. Clause 52 sets out the rules on the repackaging of qualifying draught products. Decanting from 20-litre containers into smaller containers will be prohibited unless the products are to be consumed on the premises at which decanting takes place.

Labour supports these measures, which will support and protect the hospitality sector, but our analysis has found that more than 70,000 venues have had to reduce their opening hours because of energy bills. I have seen that in my constituency. These are businesses that enrich our communities and boost our high streets, but they are being let down by the Government and many of these changes will come far too late.

I note that the draught relief has been designed in a way that will exclude the wine sector. Can the Minister explain why? Will he let us know whether the Government will introduce any other measures to support British wine and spirit producers?

Clause 54 lays out measures to replace the small brewers relief with a small producer relief. Clause 55 specifies that eligible producers will be those whose products have an alcoholic strength of less than 8.5% ABV and who produce less than 4,500 hectolitres of alcohol per year. The remaining clauses and schedules lay out precise measures for calculating rates of relief.

Labour introduced the small brewers relief in 2002 and is proud of the effect that it has had by supporting small brewers and creating a vibrant UK beer scene. We therefore support the extension of relief to other producers, but I note that that may not occur under the new scheme, as British wine and spirit producers are largely excluded from these measures. Perhaps the Minister could lay out why the scheme has not been further extended.

In conclusion, Labour recognises the need to simplify the alcohol duty regime while striking a balance between supporting businesses and consumers, protecting public health and maintaining a source of revenue for the Exchequer.

[Mr Carmichael]

May I take up the point about small producers? Deerness distillery, in my constituency, is a family-owned business that is seeking to move into whisky production. Surely, as a small producer in a market dominated by big corporates, it should be given the same opportunity to grow as a brewer. Why, in principle, should there be any difference in their treatment?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

We, too, are concerned about that, and I have met various stakeholders in the sector who have highlighted their concerns. I hope that the Minister will take the issue on board in his response.

We do not oppose the clauses and schedules, but we want answers to the questions that have been raised, and, most important, we want certainty for the businesses and consumers who have suffered over the past few months and years as a result of the constant chopping and changing that the country has seen from various Conservative Governments.

[James Cartlidge]

Before I turn to the very good speeches that we have heard during the current debate, let me clarify a point relating to our earlier debate on the electricity generator levy. I mistakenly said that “private wire” was included in the levy, when of course I meant to say that it was excluded.

Let me begin by saying that I welcome the support expressed by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for the clause relating to devolved welfare payments. As for alcohol duty, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) may not recall the debate that he initiated in Westminster Hall in October 2017, when I was a mere Back Bencher, but I was the first Member to intervene on his speech. All the others were Scottish. I intervened because a leading company in my constituency produces the bottle tops for the whisky trade. That, along with the East Anglian grain that is sent up to Scotland from time to time to help support the sector, underlines the fact that this is a UK industry, and a UK export. We are all proud of Scotch whisky and the role that it plays in our economy. However, I must say this to the right hon. Gentleman, and also to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who spoke with his usual eloquence and conjured up wonderful images. I understand the importance of the Scotch whisky sector, and we have supported it—in nine of the last 10 Budgets, we have either frozen or cut the tax—but the key point is that not introducing the RPI-linked increase would have a significant cost.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is making our case himself, so presumably he will be joining us in the Lobby—as, indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland should be doing—or else accepting my amendment.

[James Cartlidge]

I had never thought of the right hon. Gentleman as a cheeky chappie, but for that brief moment, he almost was. Let me now address his amendment 7. The Scottish National party Members have, very nobly, effectively withdrawn their amendments to ride on the back of it, which is perfectly fair: they seek, ultimately, to arrive at roughly the same point, which could be described as the protection of spirits, and Scotch whisky in particular, from the RPI-linked increase.

The proposal in amendment 7 would cost an amount between £1.7 billion and £2 billion. An overall RPI freeze would cost £5 billion across the scorecard. We have, of course, supported freezes in the past, and it was I who announced the freeze back in December. Members may recall the reason for that freeze: in view of the August reform, we did not want the sector to go through two separate alcohol tax increases. We supported the industry, but it is expensive, and with the public finances as they are, we feel that the responsible option is to introduce the RPI-linked increase—which, after all, is not a real-terms increase—but, nevertheless, to bring in the differential duty to support our pubs.

[Mr Carmichael]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, for the last time.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister needs to look at the actual data relating to the revenue brought in over these years of cuts and freezes, because the story that it tells is very different from the forecasts on which he relies. He should remember that in 2015 the forecast was for a 2% reduction, but in fact there was a 4% increase. When will the Government become a bit more realistic about the effect of their own policies in this area?

[James Cartlidge]

I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s use of the word “realistic”. I have met representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association, whom I greatly respect, and they have said to me that if we freeze the tax we get the revenue. Unfortunately, however, the Government have what I believe is the very important and successful policy of using an independent body, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which makes forecasts independently for Governments on the effects of fiscal measures. [Interruption.] I hear voices behind me saying that they are wrong. The point is that the OBR is not a collection of soothsayers employed to predict, entirely accurately, exactly what will happen in the future. With the greatest respect to everyone, if that was the case, I suspect they would spend rather more of their time looking at accountancy of the turf-related kind rather than trying to forecast the national accounts. The point is that this enables us to ground fiscal events in a forecast of where we are at that time and the fiscal costs at the time, therefore adding credibility to the decisions we make and avoiding the easy situation where we do not have to make the difficult trade-offs that households and businesses know that, in reality, we have to face. If we want to cut one tax, we have to find the money from somewhere else. It is a good discipline.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I start the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should declare, to avoid any potential conflict or perception of conflict, that due to a family member’s financial interests, I have recused myself from making ministerial decisions on issues relating to the soft drinks industry levy, which will be dealt with more than amply by my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary.

I start the debate by paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, a groundbreaking Speaker of this House who commanded the Chamber with wit, good humour and gravitas for eight years. She developed a number of subtle and perhaps not so subtle tactics to control a rowdy House, including, I understand, yawning to hint that a speech had outrun the patience of the House. I will try, Mr Deputy Speaker, not to cause you to yawn.

Since the last Finance Bill in the autumn, 10-year gilt rates have fallen, debt servicing costs are down, mortgage rates are lower and inflation has peaked. The Office for Budget Responsibility now forecasts that we will meet the Prime Minister’s priorities to halve inflation, reduce debt and get the economy growing. We are on the right track.

At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered the next part of our plan: a Budget for growth. He was clear that this Government’s focus is not just on encouraging growth as we emerge out of the downturn, but on building long-term, fiscally sustainable and healthy growth with businesses and, importantly, communities.

The Finance (No. 2) Bill delivers on those commitments. It takes forward measures to support enterprise and grow the economy by encouraging business investment and helping to increase the number of people in work. It legislates for announcements made at previous fiscal events, which take advantage of our opportunities outside the EU and reinforce our commitment to financial stability and sound money. It implements the tax measures needed to continue improving and simplifying our tax system, to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On fiscal events, the Minister will be aware that there was dismay in the Scotch whisky industry at the decision not to reverse the double-digit duty hike previously announced, while introducing a freeze on duty for what the Chancellor called “warm ale”. How is that consistent with the Government’s previously stated policy of reforming spirit duty to support the Scotch whisky industry?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I understand his concerns, and I will go into a little more detail later about the reasoning behind the restructuring of alcohol levies. In the last 10 fiscal events before this one, the whisky industry benefited from either freezes or cuts in duties. The Bill will bring into place the new framework announced some time ago, including the health aspect of being able to differentiate the strength of alcohol used in products—something that I suspect the right hon. Gentleman will want to engage with in his speech.

Let me turn to the substance of the Bill, starting with the measures to support enterprise and economic growth. Those of us on the Government Benches know that a strong private sector will grow the economy, spread wealth and prosperity across the country, help to invest in public services and support the most vulnerable in society. We recognise that central to these ambitions is private sector investment, so we are lowering business taxes to incentivise investment and tackle the productivity gap. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put that at the heart of his economic strategy as Chancellor, when he introduced the super deduction for corporation tax.

The next step in encouraging business investment is the full expensing policy announced in the spring Budget. The Bill introduces full expensing for the next three years. That means that for every single pound that a company invests in qualifying plant or machinery, its taxes are cut by up to 25p. That will put more than £27 billion back into the economy over the next three years. It is a corporation tax cut worth £9 billion, which the OBR has said will increase investment by 3% for every year that it is in place. It will also make us the only major European country with full expensing, and will give us the joint most generous capital allowance regime of any advanced economy, making the UK capital allowances regime the most competitive in the OECD on a net present value basis, and securing the UK’s position as a global leader.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which I interpret to be about energy-saving materials. I ask him to watch this space. I know how keen he and his colleagues in Northern Ireland are to ensure that we are able to bring forward those measures. I was hoping he would ask me a question that would give me the opportunity to flag my love for Bushmills whiskey—in a healthy way—but sadly I have been denied that.

[Mr Carmichael]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

Crikey—if the right hon. Gentleman asks me to list my favourite Scotch whisky, we could be here some time.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am well up for that challenge. We know that the Secretary of State for Scotland argued against the increase in duty. One wonders what it was that the Minister found so unattractive in that argument; perhaps we will now get some of the answer. I do not know whether the Minister regards it as a detail, but when will we see spirit duty reform? Can she give us a date?

[Victoria Atkins]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am bound by collective responsibility, so I can neither confirm nor deny what the Secretary of State for Scotland may or may not have said. I do not know, but I certainly intend to continue to support the Scotch whisky industry. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury reminds me that the changes will be coming in in August. We want to work constructively with industry on this.

Another opportunity is in delivering a better connected country. As announced in the autumn Budget 2021, the Bill delivers a package of air passenger duty reforms that will bolster air connectivity across the UK through a 50% cut in domestic air passenger duty. Set at £6.50, the new domestic band will benefit more than 10 million passengers from April. The reforms will also align with UK environmental objectives by adding a new ultra-long-haul band, ensuring that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty.

The Bill will also take forward measures to support sustainable public finances, helping to provide the stability and confidence that underpin the economy and supporting businesses and households across the country. Despite energy prices having come down since they reached historic heights after the invasion of Ukraine, we know that many families and businesses still feel the strain. The only sustainable solution to the link between the cost of gas and the price paid by customers for all electricity is to reform the energy market and reduce the reliance on gas generation, so as we announced at the autumn statement, the Government are now legislating for a tax on the extraordinary returns of electricity generators resulting from the spike in gas prices driven by Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. It is forecast to raise approximately £14 billion over the next five years, to help to fund public services and interventions to support households and businesses with increased energy bills.

To further ensure that businesses pay their fair share of tax, the Government will also legislate to protect the UK tax base against aggressive tax planning by large multinational businesses, and to reinforce the competitiveness of the UK; I know that this is a matter of interest to several right hon. and hon. Friends. The Bill will implement OECD pillar two in the UK, which builds on the historic agreement of over 135 countries to a two-pillar solution to the tax challenges of a globalised and digital economy. The global minimum tax—pillar two, as it is called by those who speak accountancy language—will ensure that multinational enterprises pay a minimum 15% rate of tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate, meaning that those companies operating in the UK contribute their fair share to sustainable public finances.

Energy Trilemma

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of tackling the energy trilemma.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and to the many colleagues from across the parties who have supported today’s important debate on tackling the energy trilemma. It is perhaps the most critical issue facing us today. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine highlighted the extraordinary pressure on the energy systems of countries right across the world, and also demonstrated the crucial importance of energy sovereignty. For us in the UK, although the risk to security of supply remains low, the Russian invasion has demonstrated as never before the importance of balance in tackling the energy trilemma.

We can think of the energy trilemma as being a bit like a three-legged stool. Its three equally important legs are first, keeping the lights on; secondly, keeping the cost of energy bills down; and thirdly, decarbonising right across the world. If we are to sit comfortably on that stool, all three legs must be in balance, and be given equal consideration. Achieving that balance is by no means easy. As chairman of the 1922 Back-Bench committee on business, energy and industrial strategy, I have, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who is vice-chairman of the committee and is here, the noble Lord Lilley, the vice-chairman of the committee from the other place, and other colleagues from across our two Houses, been looking in detail at the practical steps that need to be taken to meet this enormous challenge.

The Government are, I know, already working hard to tackle the energy trilemma, but while they already have a great deal in hand, a shove here and a push there could make a huge positive difference in very short order to consumers, businesses and our decarbonisation efforts. In our recent report, “Energy Market Reform: Tackling the energy trilemma,” our committee made 34 recommendations. They include unblocking renewables; cutting energy demand; improving the flexibility of energy pricing; looking at the future of the energy price guarantee; and creating a new energy Department in Whitehall. I was very pleased to see that the Prime Minister came to the same conclusion on that last point, and created the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I sincerely hope that we will be as successful with our other 33 recommendations. I am keen to use this debate to make the case for them to Ministers.

There is no doubt that the UK has been a world leader in deploying renewable energy projects, coming from almost a standing start in 2010. By 2020, solar and wind produced nearly 30% of the UK’s electricity—a tenfold increase on 2010. The UK is proud to have almost half the world’s offshore-deployed wind, all created under successive Conservative Governments—a great record of commitment that we can point to. However, renewable energy projects face increasing bottlenecks, including delays in the planning system, delays to grid connections, shortages in supply chains and a creaking electricity market design. In addition, there is an increasing risk of skills shortages as the deployment of offshore wind ramps up this decade. To tackle these problems, the Government should consider a number of measures that should already be in hand.

First, we should speed up the planning system by straight away implementing the new national policy statement for renewables, which has been good to go since 2011, and which would provide much greater investability. In particular, the concern over developers reserving grid connections and allowing years to pass without using them means that vital housing and infrastructure projects cannot go ahead because they cannot get a grid connection.

Secondly, the Government should consider officially committing to the development of an offshore ring main for offshore wind. Some projects are already sharing infrastructure, but clear guidance from Government would speed that up and make it much more acceptable to communities who do not want the huge onshore infrastructure currently being pushed onto their beaches and sensitive onshore conservation areas.

Thirdly, the Government could immediately issue direction on where new power lines should be located. Overhead lines are much cheaper, but less acceptable to communities. Underground lines, on the other hand, are potentially six times more expensive. There is a lack of clarity on policy in this critical area, particularly because independent analysis has concluded that, to meet our 2030 targets for electrifying our energy system, the National Grid will need to build seven times as much infrastructure over just the next seven years as we have achieved in total over the last 32 years—a huge mountain to climb.

Fourthly, although there has been progress on floating offshore wind projects, the Government should take seriously the evidence that floating offshore wind on Britain’s west coast in particular could strengthen our energy security, improving electricity resources in Northern Ireland as well as providing a hedge against low wind speed around other parts of the British Isles.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is making excellent points. She served as Energy Minister, I think, and I am reminded that the best part of 20 years ago one of her predecessors as Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, was promoting the case for an interconnector to go down the west coast of the United Kingdom and through the Irish sea. That did not happen, essentially because of concerns in Ofgem about the danger of stranded assets. I think her idea is a good one, but does she agree that in order to achieve it there will have to be a fundamental rethink about the way we regulate the industry?

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; of course regulation, safety and considering the impact of potential stranded assets are vital. I do not think there should be any fundamental objections to expanding the use of interconnectors, but I am talking specifically here about floating offshore wind, which has huge potential but is not yet being deployed in the UK.

Fifthly, the Government should stop paying offshore wind farms in Scotland to switch off when it is too windy, which is already costing bill payers billions a year. Instead, we should look at piloting local electricity pricing, encouraging producers to work with business and consumers to use more electricity when it is plentiful and to reduce usage or use stored energy when the wind stops. That could be valuable for everyone, from Scottish citizens accessing cheap electricity when the wind is blowing to Cornish residents doing likewise when the sun is shining. Local electricity pricing offers transformational change that would make much better sense of the successful deployment of so many renewables.

One key recommendation made by the 1922 BEIS committee is on how to make these projects more acceptable to local communities. Local referendums and local compensation caused a bit of a stir when we announced them, but the idea has a lot of merit. In short, the report recommends that any proposed onshore wind, solar or shale gas extraction project should be subject to a local referendum on the basis of a simple majority. Where 50% or more of those who vote are in favour, the project can then go to normal planning considerations, but without the prospect of being overturned for lack of local support.

In return for the community accepting that limit on individual objections, our report proposes that local residents should receive free or subsidised energy bills for the entire lifetime of the project. That would have the effect of not only encouraging local communities, but forcing developers to think twice before locating renewables too close to sensitive communities because of the impact on the financial viability of their project. At the same time, bearing in mind the need for an urgent increase in the amount of electricity infrastructure, the committee recommends that the National Grid should be encouraged to build new pylons alongside transport corridors, and that renewables developers should be encouraged to locate alongside them, resulting in cheaper grid connections.

The second area of investigation in our report was how to cut energy demand. Every unit of energy that is not used is one that does not have to be generated. That reduces carbon emissions, cuts the cost of energy to consumers and to businesses, and improves our energy security—a genuine triple win. Ever since the committee’s first report in April 2022, we have been recommending a wide range of energy-saving actions, and I will highlight just a few of them.

First, boiler installers should focus not only on safety, as they do at present, but on efficiency. Every boiler installation should provide only sufficient power to heat that particular home or business, and the temperature gauge should be set at the most efficient level.

Secondly, the completion of the smart meter roll-out should be prioritised and the move to half-hourly pricing brought forward, to put control in the hands of consumers through smart tariffs. They could then choose to wash clothes, cook or charge their car when energy is cheap. Likewise, businesses could plan their energy use around cheaper periods. That could have a big impact on flattening the overall daily peaks in energy demand, with massive benefit for energy security and cost. It would then make sense to regulate for white goods to be smart as standard, to automate the way in which customers take advantage of cheaper price windows.

Thirdly, the report proposes that the Government should bring forward enforcement of the new homes standards and expand the energy company obligation—ECO4—scheme to insulate more cold homes, which would offer far better value for taxpayers than our current policy of subsidising heating for draughty homes. We also recommend that an organisation modelled on Home Energy Scotland should be introduced in England to provide better advice and support to households.

An area in which the committee feels that Government policy has taken a wrong turn is the energy cap itself. It was a well-intentioned policy to stop customers being ripped off by their energy supplier if they did not switch provider often enough, but the current energy crisis has exposed major flaws in the operation of the cap. The cap is below the true cost of supplying energy, so almost all customers are now on capped tariffs in addition to extremely costly additional taxpayer subsidies. That has killed the market for switching between energy suppliers, and has exacerbated the bankruptcy rate of energy suppliers. The report recommends, first, a thorough review of the energy price cap; secondly, that the green levies on energy bills be permanently moved to general taxation to take away some of the regressive nature of levies on energy bills; and thirdly, that a more targeted system for energy bills be introduced. One specific proposal that is worthy of consideration is a cap for basic electricity usage per household, above which households are exposed to the full unsubsidised costs of energy.

Fourthly, our report recommends a new requirement for energy suppliers to offer long-term, fixed-price energy deals so that consumers and businesses have the budgeting certainty that so many achieve through taking out fixed-rate mortgages for their homes or buildings. Fifthly, energy regulator Ofgem must shoulder much of the blame for supplier failures. Financial regulation of energy suppliers has been far too weak. The Government should direct Ofgem to implement banking-style financial stability requirements to avoid a repeat of recent history, whereby an energy supplier can make money when energy costs are below the cap but goes bust if energy costs rise above the cap, leaving all bill payers to pick up the tab.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Actually, I agree with those comments from the professor and from the hon. Gentleman. When I have been in Aberdeen and been out looking at some of the offshore technology there, it has struck me that there is that transferability—if I may call it that—of skills from the oil and gas sector. Of course, we need to make that happen.

But what I would say is that, if Skilling is right—and I believe he is—the scale of the opportunity goes way beyond the jobs that we currently have in oil and gas. We need to make sure that we have the research and development and the innovation right across the supply chain, and that we are utilising not just our higher education sector, but the further education sector to deliver people with the appropriate skills to do this. That is an enormous opportunity. Out of that, there is an enormous opportunity to make sure that we have an industrial strategy that is fit for purpose as well. I would be delighted if we had these kinds of debates more often in this House—if we were actually having detailed discussions about how we do all this. What do we have to do to make the planning system work in a way that is respectful to local communities, but recognises the need and desire to move ahead?

[Mr Carmichael]

On the subject of planning and the delays that are associated with it, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in Canada, the time from consent to installation for a tidal device is around three years, whereas in this country, it is seven or eight. It comes down to something as simple as the fact that we do all the different impact assessments and the rest of it sequentially, when with a bit of imagination and creativity, they could all be done side by side.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree. The right hon. Member has made an important point. Often, the question is: how do we make sure we are protecting the rights of stakeholders and the rights of communities, while being able to do things at pace? What we have been talking about highlights the potential loss of technological leadership, because if we cannot do these things, we will not get that investment. In that context, let me go to the side a little, because I want to talk about one of the subsets of the green industry that has enormous potential for us.

We heard a comment earlier about nuclear and the opportunity to provide baseload. I have mentioned this in the House on a number of occasions, and I do not apologise for doing so again: there is enormous opportunity in tidal, and that has been demonstrated with the success we have seen with a number of projects. I encourage everyone in the House to examine a peer-reviewed Royal Society report published just ahead of COP26. It highlighted the opportunity of developing 11.5 GW of energy from tidal. If we look at the projects already developed in the United Kingdom, we tend to find that as much as 80% of that supply chain has been generated domestically. A number of the companies doing that are supplying equipment to such countries as France and Canada, as has been mentioned. There is a real danger that unless we recognise the scale of the opportunity, we will lose that leadership.

I am delighted that in the last contracts for difference round, the UK Government put in place a ringfenced pot of £20 million for tidal. That got us off to a degree of a start in fulfilling that ambition laid out in the Royal Society report. It was not as much as I would have liked. For us to fulfil that potential, we need to provide as much as £50 million annually, but I regret that over the past few days we have seen that that ringfenced pot will be cut to £10 million. I say to the House that we run the risk of losing this industry, and I appeal to the Government to revisit this issue. We can provide that baseload from tidal, as an alternative to nuclear energy. If we are ambitious about getting to that kind of scale in tidal, ultimately we will be providing that baseload on a more affordable basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on bringing this subject to the House. Her metaphor of the three-legged stool is a very good one. If we can move away from the immediacy of the problems, this debate allows us a few minutes to think about the issue in a more strategic manner. The point about the three-legged stool is that it works as a stool only if it has all three legs. If we take away any one of the three legs—affordability, security or decarbonisation—the other two will not achieve their purpose. The debate is often frustrating and ill served by false, binary choices. The point about a “trilemma” is that the choices that have to be made are about the balance of the progress we make on the three heads of the challenge, as well as the different means by which we seek to achieve them.

For years, to my certain knowledge, the debate has been bedevilled by easy options, and that remains true about some parts of the debate today. I remain to be convinced about nuclear, either in its own right or as a source of baseload, but sceptics like me have to then ask, “Well, where does the baseload come from?” From my point of view, there are enormous opportunities from developments such as tidal energy, which I will come on to as it matters a lot to me and my constituency. There is also the issue of storage and, beyond that, the flattening of the curve through supply-side and demand-side management. Again, it is all about balance. There is no silver bullet here; there is no one technology, area or direction of travel that will solve all our difficulties.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire also spoke about local involvement in planning decisions. There is one other item that I would commend to her in terms of managing these issues: local benefit. Communities that are to have a wind farm, for example, have the opportunity to see some money coming back directly to their community, which makes an enormous difference.

In my own parish, we have a development of five wind turbines that provides a fund, which is administered by the local community council. My student sons have both benefited from that fund in terms of support given to them during their years at university. The support provided by such funds is small but meaningful. If we are to change the way in which we generate energy, from it being produced in large amounts in a small number of places to a much more diffuse pattern of generation, we have to find different ways of doing that.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

The Back-Bench committee proposed that individual households living very close to a renewable project should have their energy bills subsidised or free for the duration of that project, so I agree with the right hon. Gentleman but I think it should be even more direct than just a pot, as is so often the case.

[Mr Carmichael]

Absolutely. We make progress on these things incrementally, so if we can get to that situation that would be music to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents.

In Orkney, we already generate more energy from renewables than we can use in our own community. However, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) observed earlier, because of the way in which the market is regulated and structured, we actually pay more for it. That is something that generates not just energy, but an enormous amount of resentment in the community as well.

[Ian Blackford]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the progress he is making. There is a real issue about the disbursement of these funds because they are becoming particularly meaningful; it is a hot topic at the moment in Skye. We need to reflect on the powers that often lie with developers to make the determination as to how that pot is disbursed. We will have to be very careful across Government, here in Westminster and in the devolved Administrations, about setting the principles that have to be followed. If not, we will end up in a situation in which communities will, quite frankly, not get the benefit to extent that they should. We need to have effective governance in all of this to make sure that people are protected properly.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. With a commitment to the principle from the top, everything underneath tends to fall into place.

There is another aspect of community benefits in which we may have missed a trick in Scotland recently. Although we missed out on a sovereign wealth fund, apart from in Orkney and Shetland, in the 1970s, there would have been an opportunity to generate more of a sovereign wealth fund from offshore renewables in the ScotWind round. We missed the boat this time, but I hope we can make up for it in future.

In many ways, Orkney and Shetland demonstrates the energy transition issues and the trilemma in microcosm: we have long, dark, cold winters, we have poor-quality housing stock and we are off the mains gas grid, so we do not have the same opportunities for access to cheaper heating as other parts of the country. The affordability element therefore very much matters to us. We generate more electricity from renewables than we can use for ourselves, but because of how the market was regulated until recently, when we finally got consent for a cable to the Scottish mainland, we have not been able to maximise the benefits. It is galling that although we are leading the way in decarbonised energy production, we end up paying more because we are part of a market that is regulated for the UK as a whole and that relies too heavily on the wholesale price of gas, as we are now seeing.

Let me just vent parenthetically for a second or two about the energy company SSE and its occasional choice simply to stop paying people who are entitled to feed-in tariff payments. I always seem to have at least one such case on the go among my constituency casework. Just last week, I was able to secure eventual, long-overdue repayment from SSE of £72,000 to one farmer in my constituency. That was money that SSE owed him and there was absolutely no reason for it not to pay, but for arbitrary and unaccountable reasons it seems occasionally just to decide to stop paying people. To my mind, that is an abuse of the privilege that it has been given by successive Governments.

Orkney is home to the European Marine Energy Centre, which is just about to celebrate its 20th anniversary. It has been at the forefront of the development of tidal stream energy generation; no doubt it could now play a similar role in the development of floating offshore wind.

Like other hon. Members, I was delighted to see the ringfenced pot in the round 4 allocation, but I share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. That is not just me speaking; the UK Marine Energy Council, RenewableUK and Scottish Renewables have all reacted badly, so I hope that the Department is already thinking about how to maximise the opportunities by getting some of the money back.

With the synergy between oil and gas, we have been at the forefront of the country’s energy needs for 40 years now, and the development of offshore renewables is the obvious next step. When I speak to apprentices, as I did during National Apprenticeship Week last month, they tell me that although they are starting apprenticeships in the oil and gas industry, they fully expect to have transitioned to something different by the end of their working lives.

For the past 40 years, my constituency has been home to the two largest oil terminals in western Europe: Flotta in Orkney and Sullom Voe in Shetland, which provide a visual demonstration of the just transition. EnQuest, the terminal operator at Sullom Voe, is now working on projects involving hydrogen, carbon capture, use and storage, and offshore electrification of production. It is a visual illustration of transition, but again it shows just how ill served we are by binary choices. All the time, we seem to be told, “You can have renewables or you can have hydrocarbons, but you can’t have both.” That is dangerous nonsense. We have allowed production of oil and gas on the UK continental shelf to decline in recent years, and it has been to our detriment. It was never put in these terms at the time, but I cannot think why anyone ever thought it would be a good idea to rely on Vladimir Putin for the purchase of our gas and Mohammed bin Salman for the production of our oil when we have a rich resource on our own doorstep. As we heard from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the production of oil and gas in the North sea or to the west of Shetland is much less carbon-intensive than importing it from other parts of the world.

The point, surely, is this: it is not an either/or. There is no route to decarbonisation and achieving net zero other than one that goes through oil and gas production. I do not want to see the future generations of my constituents working in oil and gas. I do want to see them work in renewables, but I think that that will be much more likely if we take a long, hard, clear-eyed look at what happens in the future with oil and gas production on our own continental shelf.

There are many other things that we should be doing, such as managing supply and demand and increasing the amount of storage and smart grid—something that offers great opportunities for those who can turn on their washing machines at the other end of the country using their smartphones, although I suspect that it would be a bit more challenging for the members of the community who would benefit most from opportunities of that kind.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire has done us a great service in initiating this timely debate. I hope that its strategic aspects have been heard and understood on the Treasury Bench, and will be acted on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate. I must admit that I did not realise when she secured the debate that I would effectively be responding to a Tory Back-Bench 1922 committee report. It comes as an even greater surprise to me that I agree with the recommendations she has raised. She did say that there were 30-odd recommendations, though. She did not go through them all—I thank her for that—but I suspect that I would find some among them that I disagree with.

As I say, I agree with the right hon. Lady on the points that she brought forward. We really do have to unlock renewables, and I agree about the need to reduce demand. One way to do that is to increase energy efficiency installations; the Government must really ramp up action on that. One thing I would say to the Minister is that I am now getting feedback that the roll-out through ECO4 is not going as quickly as suppliers would like it to go; they are already behind on progress this year, so maybe we need to look at ways to target the right homes for energy efficiency upgrading.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire obviously took credit for the creation of the new stand-alone Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I welcome that new Department; to be honest, it was long overdue, but at least it now seems to have the right priority within Government. I also completely agree about the number of grid upgrades that will be required. We need much better forward planning, and it was certainly an eye-opener when she said that we had seven times the amount of infrastructure still to be built. There is no doubt that Ofgem has failed on that. National Grid ESO confirmed two weeks ago to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that it paid £4 billion in constraint payments last year. That is effectively £4 billion wasted that could have gone towards grid upgrades, storage or other mechanisms, and it shows how Ofgem needs to get a grip on the issue and allow anticipatory investment.

We need to imagine what the grid will be required to look like in 2050 and start planning for that now. I am concerned at the piecemeal approach that has been taken; even when the grid has been upgraded, we are building in future constraints already instead of putting in the right capacity. That will cost more money in the long run and block renewables from coming online.

I must say I also welcome the right hon. Lady’s conversion to referendums. She will find that on the SNP side we completely agree with the need for referendums, and I look forward to her support on that matter. I was also glad to hear her compliment the independent advice body Home Energy Scotland, and it would be good to see a completely independent body set up in England to give free and impartial advice and help people to get the measures required.

It is no surprise that I agree with the points my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made. He is right that the IPCC report highlights the urgency to take action now, before it is too late. He also highlighted the fact that investment is relocating to the United States where there is momentum because of the Inflation Reduction Act. Meanwhile, here we have the electricity generator levy, but no renewables investment allowance. We really need to look at some form of that. My right hon. Friend obviously mentioned the Skilling report, the opportunity potentially to scale up to 80 GW of green electricity generation in Scotland and how important that could be in a just transition, creating 300,000-plus new jobs.

I also agree with my right hon. Friend on tidal stream. I have been trying to highlight the issues with the funding pot announced for AR5—it is definitely not enough money, especially with inflationary pressures. MeyGen in the Pentland Firth is the biggest tidal stream site in the world, but it has confirmed that it now faces inflation pressures of +50% on the AR4 strike rate that it bid against. The only way that that project can grow is if it gets to scale up through a bigger proportion agreed in AR5, and for that there needs to be a much bigger budget. I am pleased to say that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has agreed to meet me next week, and I will certainly make the case for at least £40 million, which is what I have been asking for.

In a real twist, I agreed with the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). There is no doubt that we will still be using oil and gas in 2050 and will still need to utilise them as an asset. As he rightly said, Scotland is a net exporter of oil and gas. In fact, it supplied almost 50% of the UK’s gas consumption last year and 75% of the oil.

When we talk about energy security, though, we must be realistic and accept that, while even a lower percentage increase in production for the North sea increases energy security, that oil and gas can be traded on the international market and does not necessarily come directly into the UK market. There has been a 30% reduction in oil refinery capacity in the UK since 2010, so even a lot of the oil for use in end products here has to go abroad to be refined and then come back. The security issue is not quite straightforward, but I agree that that is an asset we must continue to utilise.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Brown]

It will need to be very brief.

[Mr Carmichael]

What view does the hon. Gentleman take, then, of the Scottish Government’s current consultation on presumption against future development?

[Alan Brown]

There is no harm in consulting. We need to look at that and have proper climate compatibility checks—I think that is the right way to go about it.

I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about direct air capture, which could, of course, play a role as part of the wider Acorn cluster, but I repeat that, with £20 billion announced for carbon capture and storage, it is disappointing that we are still waiting to hear any firm commitments on Acorn. The Budget mentioned a possible track 1 expansion, so can the Minister advise me on whether Acorn might be included in that this year, or will it rely on track 2? If so, when will we hear an announcement about the track 2 process?

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly mentioned the fantastic EMEC facility. I urge the Government to come forward with funding to replace EU funding and keep EMEC going. He said that he was not too sure about nuclear. My views on nuclear are well known, but I repeat that I am completely against it. Hinkley is costing £33 billion; Sizewell C will cost something like £35 billion. Think what we could do with that money in energy storage, energy efficiency and even grid upgrades. That £35 billion is just a waste of money. Sizewell C will not be constructed for 12 to 15 years, and there is not even one successful EPR project in the world. SMRs are being promoted, but there is not even an approved SMR design in the UK. Rolls-Royce tells us that it will somehow get them up and running by 2029, but that is a fallacy when the regulator has not even approved the design yet. At £2 billion a time, SMRs are not exactly cheap, and that money could be better spent elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) made a good point about the potential for geothermal, and I agree with him. We have a lot of former mineworking areas in Scotland and other areas of the UK, and they could be a place to start on the potential for geothermal. It would be good to see Government support for that.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) mentioned community energy, an effective Local Electricity Bill, and amendments to the Energy Bill. Certainly, I have been a supporter of the Local Electricity Bill. I would be happy to consider that on a cross-party basis when the Energy Bill comes to the House of Commons.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned intermittency issues. Yes, we need to deal with them, but that can be done with pumped-storage hydro, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned. All that is required to get Coire Glas over the finishing line for final investment and approval is a green cap and floor mechanism for revenue stabilisation. Some £1.5 billion will be fully funded by SSE Renewables—no subsidy or Government guarantees have been asked for; just the revenue stabilisation mechanism.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made a good analogy, which everyone picked up on, and I agree with her, but although we are calling it the energy trilemma, we also need to look at it as an opportunity —the opportunity that comes with decarbonisation, green energy, new jobs, just transition and by bringing bills down in the long run. We have to grasp that opportunity to have a truly green renewable energy grid supplying homes across the UK.