Holocaust Memorial Day

Debate between Ed Davey and Andrew Percy

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

I am not going to get into the debate that has been raging in Poland following what President Putin said. All I will say is that wherever the Germans occupied in world war two, there were very brave people who stood against them, and there were also, sadly, people who facilitated and aided their evil and vicious aims. That is true across every single country of Europe. There were people in this country in the 1930s who, as we know and as I have just referenced, gave succour to fascism and to that hateful ideology.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech, which I agree with. He touched on the conspiracy theories around George Soros, and I am glad he did. Will he join me in condemning parts of the Hungarian Government who are pushing this and call on Prime Minister Orbán to not allow this anti-Soros propaganda to continue?

[Andrew Percy]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The indulgence of this Soros conspiracy theory—which I have heard from people in my own area, it has to be said—is completely unacceptable wherever it is found. It is racism, it is antisemitism, and it is an updated version of the tropes we saw in the 1930s. There are people who stood at the recent election who engaged in some of those theories. We must take people at their word when they apologise for that, and I would encourage anybody who has been guilty of that to work with us through the all-party group.

While there have been problems on both sides of politics, I do fear, sadly, that on the Labour Benches—some 30 of the party’s candidates at the recent election were accused of antisemitism—there is more work to be done to counter anti-Jewish racism. It is a real pleasure to co-chair the APPG with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who has made it absolutely clear that she will be steadfast in calling out antisemitism and racism on her own Benches and within her own party, and that she will have no truck with those who talk about foreign Governments being inspired by Zionist masters, any kind of relativisation of the holocaust in respect of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or, indeed, pathetic antisemitic Beatles singalongs, which we have seen. As I have said previously, it brings shame on this country’s whole body politic that, sadly, this disgusting ideology has been at the heart of British politics and mainstreamed in recent years. When I was the Minister responding to such a debate a couple of years ago, I spoke about the Israelification of antisemitism, which we have seen in recent years.

Annual Energy Statement

Debate between Ed Davey and Andrew Percy

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last, but certainly not least, I call Andrew Percy.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I can only assume it is because I am from Yorkshire, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Energy Secretary rightly pointed out how Labour’s non-freeze con would cost jobs and investment. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) heard from a local business—a big employer. We were told, with specific reference to Labour’s price freeze con, that it has lost a major contract. This is costing jobs and investment. The uncertainty that has been created in our energy market will not do anything for bills, but it will cost jobs.

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I have to tell him that it is actually worse than he suggests. People from around the world who want to invest in the UK, and who welcome our strong policies to attract investment, are now worried because of the extra uncertainty created by the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party. The Opposition’s policies are not just a con for consumers; they will undermine competition and are hitting investment and the economy. They should be ashamed.

Grangemouth Refinery

Debate between Ed Davey and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in charge of the discussions with INEOS on infrastructure guarantees. Of course, it is impossible to guarantee an investment proposition until it is put forward, so we await the business case. Given today’s news, it does not look like it will be immediately forthcoming, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman, the House and INEOS that, should a business case be put forward for investment in the petrochemicals plant, we will look at it extremely closely.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

This is obviously very sad news for those at Grangemouth, but many others working in the chemical and petrochemicals industry, including many thousands on the south bank of the Humber, will also view it with concern. Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance of the Government’s long-term commitment to the sector and inform us whether any lessons can be learnt from this case and applied to other areas, such as the Humber?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the chemical industry not only in his area, the Humber, but across the UK. The chemical industry is the UK’s leading manufacturing exporter, and it has significant growth potential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has been working with others to try to maximise the growth potential. The chemistry growth partnership strategy has been developed, and the aim is for the Government to do everything we can to support our important chemical industries. We have been looking at the impact of a closure of the petrochemicals plant at Grangemouth on the rest of the UK’s chemical industry, and that is also being led by the Secretary of State. So far we believe that the supplies that would be needed for the rest of the UK’s chemical industry can be found, and obviously that is quite an important industrial issue, but we keep that under close review.

Petrol Prices

Debate between Ed Davey and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is behind the times. We are already acting at both a global and a European level to support work that looks into how benchmarks and price reporting agencies operate, and to check that there is no danger of price manipulation or of rigging the markets in another way. The Government are taking this very seriously. We are working with a number of bodies, including the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, and are operating at EU and G20 level. We are very proactive on this issue.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My constituents are concerned about why they pay more for a gallon of petrol than those in other parts of the country, so they will welcome the investigation. What is the Secretary of State doing at a European level to ensure that the European Commission does not cut off this country’s access to Canadian oil sands, which has the potential to bring down prices at the pump for everybody?

[Mr Davey]

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is actively engaged at the European Council on this. It is a rather more complicated question than my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) implies. It is not so much about access to our markets, but how those tar oil sands and any fuel produced from them are rated in terms of their carbon content. The debate is complicated, but the UK and my hon. Friend in the Department for Transport are pushing hard to obtain a fair outcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Andrew Percy

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his efforts. He has met the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), and I am sure that he welcomed the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the taskforce, on which the hon. Gentleman is serving. It is for the taskforce to come up with ideas not just for the regional growth fund but for European funding. If the taskforce can put together a bid, I am sure that it will get the Department’s support.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Members of Parliament across north Lincolnshire are working together closely on this important issue, which affects all of our constituents. Does it not demonstrate that the creation of a pan-Humber local enterprise partnership, which was recently agreed, is a positive step forward? We now need to send in our application and hopefully get Government approval for this pan-Humber LEP in order to support the renewables industry.

[Mr Davey]

We were delighted to be able to announce yesterday the decision on a new Humber estuary local enterprise partnership, which I am sure will play a positive role. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to say whether the enterprise zone will be awarded, but clearly the taskforce and the LEP are in a good position to represent that area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Davey and Andrew Percy

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am very surprised that the hon. Lady did not mention the £27 million that the Government announced last month for face-to-face debt advice. That has been strongly welcomed by citizens advice bureaux across the country, and I would have thought that she would have given us credit.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The CABs in Goole and Scunthorpe provide excellent advice to my constituents on debt-related issues. While I welcome the money that has been announced, is it not time that we tried to achieve a national approach? CABs have a battle, year in, year out, to secure funding, which clearly does not help our constituents.

[Mr Davey]

As I said in my initial response, we are working across government with other Ministers to make sure that we co-ordinate national efforts. We will soon respond to the call for evidence on personal consumer credit and personal insolvency, which will deal with issues such as debt advice.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Ed Davey and Andrew Percy

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I shall discuss that in more detail, particularly in relation to Galway bay, if my right hon. Friend will be patient.

The Government’s view is that the consensus across all parts of the UK needed to justify passing legislation on this does not exist. That simple fact must lead us to oppose the hon. Lady’s Bill today, but I hope that some of my later remarks will be of comfort to her.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I agree with much of the Minister’s comments and I have concerns about the Bill, but should it not at least proceed? There is a debate to be had out there and the public are really interested, so why not let it proceed so we can go through those arguments once and for all?

[Mr Davey]

If my hon. Friend will have a little patience, I hope that he will react positively to some of my later remarks.

Our quandary is this: we appreciate the benefits that the change could bring, but we do not want any one community to be disadvantaged, or for its members to feel that they have had such a fundamental change to their daily lives foisted upon them.

There have been regular debates about the benefits of the change advocated by the hon. Member for Castle Point. Trying to change the clocks is, as I said, not a new idea. It is more than 40 years since an attempt was made to move away from Greenwich mean time in the winter months as well as the summer throughout the UK. Between 27 October 1968 and 31 October 1971 an experiment was conducted, and summer time—that is, Greenwich mean time plus 1 hour—was adopted throughout the year in order to test public opinion about continuous summer time. Although this was British summer time all the year round, it was known as British standard time.

There were two general arguments for a move to British standard time. The first was that the move would avoid the inconvenience of changing the clocks in the spring and autumn. The second depended on the fact that in those days most of our trading partners on the European mainland were on central European time throughout the year, the concept of summer time not being one that we had managed to sell to them at that time. So by adopting permanent British summer time, we brought ourselves into line with those countries at a time when we were eager to increase trade with our European neighbours, and at a time before e-mail and other technology made communication possible at any time of day or night.

Consultations carried out by the Government in 1966, before the experiment to change to British summer time throughout the year, revealed the divergence of opinion between the majority of people in England and Wales, who favoured British standard time all year round, and those in Scotland and the north of England, who were opposed. Nevertheless, the experiment went ahead and lasted for three years. A review of the experiment was conducted in the winter months of 1968-69 and 1969-70. The review found that it was impossible to quantify at that time many of the more important claims about the advantages and disadvantages of British standard time.

However, what the review did reveal was the many practical objections that were raised by the farming and construction industries and others involved in outdoor work, such as road maintenance workers, postal workers and dairy workers, particularly in the north of England and Scotland, who claimed that the change caused discomfort and inconvenience because of the late sunrise in winter. They also claimed that they could not easily change their working hours because of public demand for early services. Those objections would probably have less force today as the economy is less dependent on agriculture, and equipment can operate at night, but they are still a factor.

There was also concern about hazards to schoolchildren particularly in rural areas, who would be going off to school up to an hour and a half before dawn. We have heard much about that argument today. It appears that any increase in road casualties in the mornings would be at least offset by reductions in the evenings, but significant concerns about that remain, particularly in more northern areas.

Following a free vote—I repeat, a free vote—in Parliament on 2 December 1970, the House voted by the decisive margin of 366 to 81 to revert to the current arrangements. There must have been some weight behind that decision if, having lived through the experiment for three years, so many Members in all parts of the House were not persuaded. Portugal did exactly the same after it experienced four years of a similar experiment.

If we want to get a more recent idea of how a change to our summer time arrangements might impact on the United Kingdom, we can look to Portugal, which moved to central European time in 1992. Of course Portugal is in a different geographical location from us, but being at the westerly extremity of Europe it is currently on the same time zone as the UK and Ireland. Since most of its trade is with the European Union, its Government decided, as we had in the 1960s, that it would be beneficial to be in the same time zone as its neighbours and trading partners. The experiment was abandoned in 1996 and Portugal reverted to GMT because its population decided that the gains of lighter evenings were not, in the end, offset by the pain of darker mornings. So perhaps the change did not bring all the benefits that were hoped for, which highlights the practical reality and consequences of an actual change.

Some of the complaints resulting from the Portuguese experiment were not necessarily ones that I had immediately thought of. For example, the light summer evenings apparently had a disturbing effect on children’s sleeping habits, which in turn led to poor performance in school and lack of concentration. Pollution from road traffic increased as the rush hour in the summer months coincided with the hotter times of the day. Let us remember that these are actual findings from an actual experiment.

Perhaps more importantly, Portugal found that the energy savings arguments were relatively weak. The intended savings in household electricity consumption were disappointingly low as, according to the report, the change resulted in an “insignificant saving.” It would appear that the extension of daylight hours meant that people tended to engage in other leisure activities after work, which might have been good for the leisure and tourism industry but unfortunately led to higher energy consumption.