Jayne Kirkham MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jan 2025 · Marine Renewables Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate, which is of great interest to me as an MP from Cornwall and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea. I will probably replicate some points that have been made but it is telling that we are all calling for similar things, so I will say a little more about some of the industry’s asks. Cornwall is ideally placed to play a leading role in the development of the marine renewables industries. We have 400 miles of coast, strong tides, south-westerly winds and proximity to the Celtic sea. We are in a prime location for offshore wind and tidal stream energy. The port of Falmouth in my constituency could service floating offshore wind turbines, and Truro and Falmouth is home to world-leading businesses such as Inyanga and Tugdock, which are at the forefront of marine renewables innovation. However, the tidal and wave industries, like floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, need support from the Government and particularly ringfencing for AR7, to which I will return. As hon. Members have noted, tidal stream is a highly reliable method of energy generation because it is unaffected by weather, offers a stable energy supply and complements other more intermittent renewable sources, such as wind and solar. It also presents a number of benefits to UK jobs, supply chains and energy security. Tidal stream projects are being deployed with over 80% UK supply chain content, which is a much higher percentage than for some other renewable technologies. However, tidal and wave are smaller, less-developed industries than solar or fixed offshore wind. Tidal energy currently forms less than 0.01% of the UK’s electricity generation, but the UK Marine Energy Council says that it has the potential to meet over 10% of demand. I welcome the Government’s recent clean power action plan, which recognised the potential for tidal stream and floating offshore wind to be important components of long-term decarbonisation in the UK. However, for that to happen—and if marine renewables are to follow a similar cost-reduction pathway to solar and fixed offshore wind—the marine renewables industry does need Government support. From AR4 onwards, tidal energy has benefited from ringfencing, which led to Inyanga, based in my constituency, being awarded CfDs in AR5 and AR6 for their HydroWing technology, which will be deployed in Morlais, Wales. Previous allocation rounds show that the sector can respond successfully to a ringfence. Inyanga had the only successful pot 2 offshore project to win a CfD in AR6. The ask of Great British Energy is to commit, say, 3% of its budget to investing in marine energy because tidal stream projects are being deployed with over 80% UK supply chain content spend, which is significantly higher than for other renewable technologies. GB Energy should seek to embed and accelerate deployment of that UK content in projects installed here and around the world. It could take equity stakes, under commercial terms, in projects that have secured a CfD. Other hon. Members have asked about a Government-industry marine energy taskforce. The purpose of that taskforce would be to bring together key players from Government, industry, regulatory and other relevant organisations to enable marine energy development—the embedding of that UK content in projects deployed here and around the world—to support the Government’s ambition to make the UK a clean energy superpower. I have also been pushing for that kind of masterplan and leadership for floating offshore wind. Others have asked about the 2035 targets, including a 1 GW tidal stream and 300 Mw of wave energy deployment. Setting those targets will boost investor confidence and support investment in coastal communities and beyond. The UK could also introduce innovation funding, particularly for marine energy. Between 2017 and 2022, such projects received only £17 million in innovation funding. Wave energy projects received £57 million of funding, £39 million of which came from the Scottish Government. That targeted innovation funding has been proven to reduce the overall cost associated with commercialising these emerging renewable technologies. Two tidal scheme projects in Scotland were successful in the last Horizon Europe call, which demonstrates both the importance of a close UK-EU relationship on marine energy and the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for that innovation funding. I cannot stand here and talk about renewable energy in the sea without mentioning floating offshore wind, so I will reiterate some of the asks that that industry would have as well to kick-start floating offshore wind, particularly in the Celtic sea. Like tidal and wave energy, floating offshore wind needs a ringfenced element in the AR6. The one-size-fits-all route is disadvantaging the Celtic sea due to the comparative lack of port infrastructure, skills and wider supply chain support. We are a virgin area; unlike Scotland, we have not had oil and gas before, so we are starting from scratch. We need technological and geographical ringfencing, CfDs for the test and demo sites in the Celtic sea, and support for stepping-stone projects such as TwinHub, which has a CfD but is facing the challenges of developing that supply chain and the now out-of-date cost of the CfD. The £1.8 billion ports fund can now be distributed quickly in a multi-port strategy that was developed, allowing ports across the region, such as Falmouth in my constituency, to work together to prepare for and benefit from the opportunities that floating offshore wind presents. The Crown Estate Bill passed through the House recently. Those option fees could, for example, be diverted to local supply chain building. Additionally, outside of the industry, other hon. Members have mentioned that we need that strategy for the ocean as a whole. It is crucial that we have a long-term marine spatial strategy, so that everything in the ocean has its place and we balance energy generation with important industries such as fishing, and with protecting the natural environment. Creating clear frameworks for each sector would give certainty to developers, which would help speed up the deployment of these renewables projects. Co-ordination would involve linking existing plans, such as the Crown Estate’s whole of seabed programme, the strategic spatial energy plan and DEFRA’s marine spatial prioritisation programme, ensuring that the UK harnesses the benefits of marine renewables while supporting fishing and safeguarding marine habitats.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps his Department is taking to help grow the economy in Northern Ireland.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Secretary of State update the House on what recent discussions he has had with the Executive about steps to increase revenue, in order to help to deliver longer-term financial sustainability and grow the economy in Northern Ireland?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The review will be very wide ranging. We are talking in great detail about the regulators’ powers, and there are four regulators. I assume—I think the Government have made this clear—that the review will look at how water is regulated, right down to how many regulators there are and how they operate, so that is completely up for grabs. We are prejudging what may be in that review, but that will be for Sir Jon to work out for himself. I feel like this is something that may be covered in the review, but will the Minister please confirm that regulation is all up for grabs?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I represent Truro and Falmouth, which has huge potential to benefit from floating offshore wind. With Falmouth docks and our position in the Celtic sea, if the build-out of the sea is done quickly and well, our young people could benefit from good, well-paid jobs in a strong local supply chain, but intervention will be needed to get to that place. No projects in the Celtic sea have been successful in leasing rounds or contracts for difference, except for one test and demo model that is struggling to build viably due to price changes. It cannot just be left to the market to build local supply chains. That will not occur without intervention and investment in our ports, businesses and further education. I welcome the Bill. The changes to the powers of the Crown Estate will enable it, in partnership with GB Energy, to invest in ports such as Falmouth, the mapping of the seabed to front-load the leasing rounds, research and development and local supply chains. When Falmouth marine school, in my constituency, was struggling to get funding for a level 2 course on floating offshore wind engineering for local 14 to 16-year-olds, the Crown Estate stepped in with one year’s funding to allow it to go ahead on a pilot scale. With the Bill’s changes, more such positive interventions could be made. With powers to borrow from the Treasury national loans fund and invest come greater responsibility. The framework for this borrowing is to be drawn up at a later date, but the Crown Estate is classified as a public corporation with a portfolio of nearly £16 billion, so it is important that it is held accountable and scrutinised in the normal way. I welcome the governance changes to the number of commissioners and the fact that they will now be paid out of Crown Estate proceeds, rather than from Parliament, but the fact remains that if they are to be given more power and control and are to enter into partnership with GB Energy, their aims and objectives need to strongly align with the growth agenda, the industrial strategy and our environmental targets, and there needs to be a mechanism of accountability. Where clause 3 compels the commissioners to “keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”, the words “strongly aligned with” would seem more appropriate. Most of the proceeds of the Crown Estate—it will be lucrative, now that wind energy is a priority, as the Crown Estate owns much of the seabed and there will be many more leasing rounds—go to the Treasury, but how the leasing rounds are conducted is important. If the Crown Estate’s priorities are truly to achieve sustainable development in the UK, price cannot be the sole criterion for awarding each lease. The highest bidder may not be the one who would work with the local population, consider the environmental impact, invest in further education, headquarter their development office in somewhere like Cornwall, which needs it, or grow the supply chain. The way that leases are awarded needs to be considered in the round, and we have the power to do that. Exemptions to World Trade Organisation rules allow contracts or leases for energy security to factor in socioeconomic and environmental factors in their decision-making criteria, and we should make use of them. Currently, the Crown Estate asks for annual option fees from developers. If the aim of clause 3 is truly to be the priority, surely those option fees should be deployed into building local supply chains and mitigating those environmental and other impacts. The partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy has the potential to be a huge force for good, spearheading the development of offshore renewable energy in a speedy but sustainable way and laying the groundwork for our future energy security, building local communities, infrastructure and supply chains in some of the most left-behind and deprived areas of the UK. With a unified strategy between all levels of the public sector, including this public corporation, and faithful allegiance to the aim of clause 3, the achievement of sustainable development in the UK could be the key that unlocks the future potential of the Celtic sea and hopefully kick-starts Cornwall’s clean energy revolution.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 3 covers this: “The Commissioners must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.” This has been written into the Bill.

• 6 Jan 2025 · NHS Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the figures for the incidence of blood cancers and sarcomas in veterans and current service personnel who have crewed particular military helicopters?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Creative Arts Education · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for obtaining this important debate on a topic I am passionate about. Cornwall, where I come from, is rich in the creative arts. I have spoken previously about the world-class Falmouth University, which grew out of a 100-year-old art school, with a strategic focus on creativity and technology. I welcome the inclusion of the creative industry in the UK’s eight growth sectors in the recent industrial strategy. It is brilliant that it has been recognised as an economic driver. Creative education has so many impacts. I will name a few, even though I should not need to, because each one should be enough on its own. The skills development, critical thinking and problem-solving skills gained from an arts education help to focus on future industries such as tech and digital media, driving economic growth. Creativity and entrepreneurial skills go hand in hand. Cornwall is teeming with small and medium-sized enterprises and one-man bands, which stimulate the independent sector and the growth of the area. That is well worth it in an area such as Cornwall that struggles with deprivation.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Creative Arts Education · Hansard source

  More

  I come from Falmouth, which has a world-leading arts university. The idea of STEAM—science, technology, engineering, arts and maths—adds the creativity of the arts, and unlocks some of the creativity in science and tech. That is where we get breakthroughs. Does the hon. Member agree?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Creative Arts Education · Hansard source

  More

  You are right that it is an important subject in its sheer scope, alongside the sciences, maths and everything else. It does more than enrich our lives; it is a fundamental part of our lives.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Creative Arts Education · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise. Creative arts are obviously a regional growth driver. We are lucky in Truro and Falmouth because those creative hubs can revitalise our region and bring in the visitors we need so much. The growth of the Hall for Cornwall, for example, has spread tentacles across the rest of the county, bringing in children and people who want to get involved in the creative arts but do not often have the opportunity. Many students learn games design at the Launchpad at Falmouth University. They can then start up their own businesses, with the help to do so. We have the Poly, the Princess Pavilion and brilliant grassroots venues, such as the Cornish Bank, the Old Bakery studios and the Chintz, where some of the musicians who are learning in our town go to practise their art. We are also building premises for a community radio station in the park with our shared prosperity funding, which shows just how important the arts are to Falmouth. People come to us for the arts. We have an alternative SEND provider called Player Ready Truro, which works with neurodivergent children; they blossom when they can do the things they love with tuition. It prepares them to go back into school and it builds their confidence. Would the Minister consider looking again at progress 8, because it does not contain an arts subject? We should definitely consider that. We must review the national curriculum so that the arts are in the prominent place that they should be.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Wealth Fund: Opportunities for Industry · Hansard source

  More

  9. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on potential opportunities for industry under the national wealth fund.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Wealth Fund: Opportunities for Industry · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, I am concerned about kick-starting floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. The infrastructure and supply chain need building out quickly, but in a co-ordinated way, and the previous Government’s floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme was not enough to do that. Will the Minister please confirm that she is working with the wealth fund on a strategy and then speedy investment in ports such as Falmouth and the local supply chain, so that they are ready to take on the challenge of floating offshore wind?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Victims of Sexual Violence: Court Delays · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that these delays can have unintended consequences, such as a change in bail conditions? If a victim happened to move, the bail condition to avoid the area may not apply any more, and they would have to go back to the police and back to court. It can become a horrible maelstrom, bringing everything back all the time for the victim.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  South West Water discharged sewage for nearly 540,000 hours in 2023, which is apparently an 83% rise compared with 2022. It is getting so much worse. I therefore welcome the measures in the Bill. They are desperately needed and cannot come soon enough for places such as Cornwall, which have suffered from sewage spills for far too long. We all know how important our seas and rivers are for our health and wellbeing, and for our ecosystems and our economy. In rural and coastal areas, they touch on almost every aspect of our lives. In my constituency and across Cornwall we have an amazing community of sea swimmers and surfers who brave the water all year round, but who are frequently unable to go out due to sewage alerts, or who become infected and get illnesses if they do. They have been campaigning tirelessly on water quality for years. Constituents write to me daily about sewage spills on our beaches. In the 2024 annual bathing water classifications released a few weeks ago, Porthluney in my constituency had its water quality designated as poor. During Storm Bert, sewage overflows were recorded in the River Carnon, River Penryn, Pill Creek, River Fal and many other rivers in my constituency. It affects not just our residents but our visitors too. Tourism is important to Cornwall. People come from all over the world to visit our coastline, but they are deterred when they see raw sewage on the beaches. Sewage dumping in the River Fal is part of what is destroying traditional industries such as the shellfish industry. In May 2023, 11 shellfish sites in Cornwall were forced to close due to dangerously high levels of E. coli. We have seen problems with our infrastructure this summer. A burst water main led to a loss of water pressure across a swathe of Cornwall and many people lost their water, including the hospital. Compensation was very limited and hard to obtain. The Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitments to hold the water companies to account. It gives the Environment Agency more resource to bring criminal charges and fines, and makes them quicker and easier to enforce. The standard of proof will change and be lower, and automatic penalties will be extended. Ofwat will have greater powers to halt performance-related pay bonuses. The Bill also introduces real-time monitoring of every sewage outlet and full transparency. Along with the announcements on investment in infrastructure made in July and the upcoming comprehensive water review, the Bill forms part of a plan for a long-term fundamental comprehensive restructuring of our water industry. We will go much further. I welcome the Bill.

• 16 Dec 2024 · English Devolution · Hansard source

  More

  Cornwall will welcome further devolution. We are a long way from London, but I want to build on the question about town councils. In places like Cornwall, cuts to unitary councils have meant town councils have already taken on a lot of responsibility, so how does the Minister see those town councils continuing in the future?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Floating Offshore Wind: Celtic Sea · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered floating offshore wind in the Celtic Sea. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. We are here today to talk about floating offshore wind, particularly in the Celtic sea. It is the next frontier in the UK’s clean energy transition, and is positioned to unlock up to 4 GW of power by 2035—enough to power 4 million homes. There are huge opportunities for Cornwall, the south-west of England and Wales, because the Celtic sea is all around us. The ambition is to put floating offshore wind in the south-west, where it would complement other offshore arrays. The opportunities that arise from it for Cornwall and the region—for our supply chain, which is poised to expand, for our economy and for our people, who will benefit from skilled, good jobs—are vast. However, to be quite brutal, an ambition is pretty much all that it is so far. The first question is, why floating offshore wind? Eighty per cent of the world’s potential offshore wind resources are in deeper waters. The Climate Change Committee estimates that the UK needs 100 GW of offshore wind by 2050, which is feasible only through the development of FLOW. FLOW is new technology, and the UK could be at the forefront of developing it for a global market, rather than relying on overseas supply chains and losing out on new investment in UK industries. The potential for jobs is vast. Why the Celtic sea? Offshore wind has a successful history off the east coast of the UK. However, the wind blows both ways. By developing FLOW in the Celtic sea, we can maximise the energy generated and mitigate the intermittency. Previously, that was not possible due to the depth of the seabed, but new floating technology has opened up the region to development, and this could be a huge opportunity if it is done well. The current Government target is for 5 GW to be produced by FLOW by 2030. It is estimated that a 4.5 GW programme in the Celtic sea, as modelled by the Crown Estate, would lead to £1.4 billion in gross value added and 5,300 jobs in the development of port infrastructure and critical component supply across the region. However, there are barriers. As I have said, FLOW has not got to the stage that we hoped it would be at by now. One of the barriers is the contracts for difference programme. After the failure of allocation round 5 to secure any FLOW projects at all under the last Government, the most recent funding round, under the new Government, resulted in the Green Volt project in the North sea securing CfD funding in AR 6. However, the budget for that pot was still too low for more than one of the three bidding projects to be successful. To reach the Government’s decarbonisation goals, contracts for difference will need to support multiple FLOW projects in each allocation round and the vital test and demonstration models—the stepping stone models—in the Celtic sea. Projects in the North sea have received significantly more investment to date, and have more developed supply chains and port capabilities, enabling them to deploy FLOW at lower costs. There is no offshore oil or gas legacy in the Celtic sea; it is a greenfield site and lacks the infrastructure that it will need to scale up. It needs targeted support to reach equity with the North sea. Having had only one successful floating offshore project in previous CfD rounds across the Celtic sea has knocked investors’ confidence, so although this is a fantastic opportunity, there is a risk that investors’ interest in the region could be lost if we do not progress quickly. To support the development of floating offshore wind, we need upgraded ports, which requires significant capital investment. However, uncertainty about the development of FLOW has led to investors holding off from developing those ports until contracts for difference have been awarded. That has led to a mismatch of timelines, as ports need investment about five years before the project is built out. The floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme has provided financial support for Port Talbot, although I understand that it has not yet been deployed. However, other ports in the region are needed to deploy floating offshore wind. A multi-port strategy needs to be pursued in the Celtic sea to make the most of all the existing ports and specialisms. We have a port in Falmouth, which is mainly why I am here, but there are others in Appledore, Plymouth and Milford Haven, so many ports and port clusters could be got up to speed to help develop floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. Unfortunately, France is ahead of us; it has committed €900 million to the port of Brest, so we need to catch up. The Government’s £1.8 billion for ports in the national wealth fund could really help to provide the leading investment and certainty required to kick-start the port investment, if it is done quickly and in a strategic way. The focus of developers in the Celtic sea is currently on the stepping stone, or test and demonstration, projects, which have an important role in giving confidence to the industry and reducing the costs and risk of future commercial-scale projects. There are currently two stepping stone projects in the Celtic sea that could be eligible to bid into the next contracts for difference auction round: Erebus and White Cross. However, both projects face challenges with planning issues, bottlenecks onshore in Devon, and investment. Hexicon’s TwinHub project is the first and only FLOW project in the Celtic sea to win a contract for difference so far in allocation round 4. It consists of two turbines in Cornwall council’s Wave Hub. However, it now faces the same rising costs as the rest of the renewable energy sector, as well as the challenge of developing a supply chain in a region that has not yet had the opportunity to do so. The contract for difference price has become less viable over time. As a more expensive, smaller test model, it was never going to be commercially viable in that way, but as a stepping stone project, it is crucial to the development of FLOW and associated supply chains in the Celtic sea. There are options available, such as making a deal with the end user for the energy or allowing TwinHub to rebid for a lower CfD price. A proactive and creative solution needs to be found to make those test and demonstration projects viable, and to scale them up in the long run. A consistent pipeline of leasing rounds in CfDs is key to scaling up skills and supply chains ahead of commercial projects coming forward for development. They would encourage developers to commit to the region, lay down roots, and plan ahead and invest. Annual option fees also have an impact on developers’ ability to use local supply chains that need more time to establish. That increases costs and pushes projects towards using overseas supply chains, removing the benefits for local communities and investments into the region. More could be done by the Crown Estate to support local supply chains, and once the Crown Estate Bill has become law and investment funds are set up between developers and the Crown Estate, that could change. Falmouth port is prepared to match Government funding to get up to speed to support the TwinHub project. There is a risk that the economic benefits of the project may go overseas without additional funding to help develop the supporting onshore industry. The development of FLOW in the Celtic sea will need huge amounts of mooring line, electric cables and anchors, which the region is currently not ready to supply. A unifying strategy is needed to encourage the necessary investment to develop those capabilities, along with others across the region. The floating offshore wind taskforce has identified realisable UK value in key components for floating wind, such as installation, mooring and anchors, concrete platforms, steel platforms, operation, maintenance and development services, ports and logistics, and array cables. At present, the national grid is a large barrier for projects. The TwinHub project has been struggling to get the full grid capacity that it needs until 2037. We need a far-sighted and co-ordinated approach from the National Energy System Operator, which has been newly nationalised. NESO is beginning a holistic network design with the Crown Estate, but that needs to happen quickly and to be scaled up. The Celtic sea is a nationally, and potentially globally, important infrastructure project, and as such, it requires a specific strategic focus from central Government. Having a GB Energy strategy on Celtic sea FLOW, with hopefully a presence in the region—maybe in Cornwall—would support co-ordination of infrastructure, industry and workforce. However, a complex set of stakeholders is involved, including government at all levels: national, devolved, Welsh nation, and different levels of south-west councils, as well as The Great South West, which is a pan-regional economic partnership. There is also Celtic Sea Power, and the newly set up Cornwall FLOW Commission, which has already done some of the work required to co-ordinate the supply chain and work out how to produce a skilled workforce—this needs a concentrated focus. There is currently no joined-up spatial strategy for the Celtic sea. Consultation on that strategy for the ocean, with fishers, conservationists and scientists, needs to be done very soon. Having a unified strategy would enable phased development and, crucially, would support the prioritisation of investment in infrastructure and the local supply chain. It would also help streamline planning. Current planning and consent is too slow. A project currently takes an average of 15 years to move from leasing to operation. To reach the Government’s net zero goals, we need to speed up the process. For example, the White Cross test and demonstration project in north Devon has been struggling to get planning consent for more than 18 months. What do we need? What are the key asks to get this going? A one-size-fits-all approach for the UK has not produced the necessary investment to get floating offshore wind off the ground in the Celtic sea. By putting it in direct competition with the North sea, the Celtic sea is likely to continue to lose out and the UK will lose the opportunity to harness all the benefits FLOW can bring. AR7 could, and should, ringfence funding for floating offshore wind, along either geographical or technological lines. Geographical ringfencing would remove direct competition with the North sea. Technological ringfencing would improve the competitive position of the test and demo stepping stone projects, which are so crucial to getting commercial sites up and running and which play a critical role in maintaining investor confidence in the region. To overcome the challenges of developing onshore supply chain capabilities to deploy FLOW in the Celtic sea, the Government could support collaborative and strategic investment in ports, rather than putting them in competition with one another as FLOWMIS did. A specific targeted wealth fund could be created to invest in infrastructure, supply chain and to lever in private investment, with particular focus on ports. In the short term, we can have logistics hubs and technologies to include temporary portside space like Tugdock in the south-west. But long term, we need to invest not only in our ports and infrastructure, but in our rail, road and digital. A co-ordinated approach to how the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Crown Estate, GB Energy and the national wealth fund exercise their procurement and auction processes, and the use of World Trade Organisation and trade and co-operation agreement exceptions for reasons of national energy security and net zero targets, could give freedom to add clauses into contracts and leases to encourage local supply chain building and workforce training investment by developers. Some developers have expressed interest in doing that and are even setting up headquarters to co-ordinate it. The Crown Estate’s option fees and the rules around how they are used could be reconsidered, so that they could be deployed as a catalyst for greater investment in that regional supply chain. DESNZ and the Crown Estate could put supply chain social value and biodiversity net gain incentives directly into those local delivery mechanisms. We have world-class further education colleges in Cornwall that are ready to step up and provide the specialisms and scale of the workforce we need, but we need direction, funding and a long-term career pathway. We have discussed previously a FLOWmark programme to build up those skills specifically for this industry in our region. In summary, we need a unified national strategy for floating offshore wind and a regional masterplan for FLOW in the Celtic sea. Without the strategy, we risk losing out on the benefits of this nationally important infrastructure project, including its export potential. We risk the goal of reaching clean energy by 2030. There is a huge future in the Celtic sea, and we need to reach out and grasp it.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Floating Offshore Wind: Celtic Sea · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Efford; I certainly will not take 27 minutes. I thank the Minister and everybody who has come to this debate. I can tell by the passion how much we want this for the region, as has been set out by so many Members. We have some really deprived, post-industrial areas where we are, and, particularly in Cornwall, they have been post-industrial for a lot longer than other places. We could be a renewable gold mine. If we look at critical minerals, there is so much potential in Cornwall. It has become so desperately important that we start to realise some of those benefits, and there is enough for the whole of the region, for the south-west and for Wales. It is really important to note that this is a huge project. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) and I have taken over the APPG for the Celtic sea from the previous Member for North Devon and my predecessor in Truro and Falmouth, who did a lot of good work on it. It is brilliant to be able to take that work forward as fast as we can. The social value of this will be huge. I will emphasise again and again how important it is that we get there with the jobs and the supply chain and in bringing in some of that fabrication, if we can, such as the manufacturing, the operations and the maintenance, so that we do not have to tow things across the sea. The clean industry bonus that the Minister spoke about is brilliant, but I want to emphasise how important the contracts for difference will be. They can be used and ringfenced to try to push forward some of the test and demo models; we will have the capacity to do that, if they are used properly to take forward the stepping stone projects. I was really pleased to hear what he said about ports. Our ports are ready to build, for so many reasons; floating offshore wind is one of them, but there are many others. The port task and finish group will be so important, as will having national and regional strategies for how our ports will work together. On the supply chain and the workforce, I want to emphasise again the possibility of using contract clauses in the auction rounds. We are able to do that, despite World Trade Organisation rules, and perhaps we should think again about the option fees and how they could be ploughed back into areas to build the supply chain and stimulate local operations, assembly and fabrication. I am very pleased to hear about the discussions with NESO and GB Energy, because the grid has been holding back so many projects across the country. It seems that those projects have been put in chronological order, rather than order of merit or importance. It is good that NESO is looking again at that. A completion date of 2037 for one of the projects was just crazy—we cannot be doing that. It has to change. To finish—I certainly have not gone on for 27 minutes—I will say that we really need a unified strategy. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) was right about bringing people with us, including our fishers and environmentalists. There is huge space in the ocean for all of this to be done successfully, but it really needs championing and leading. I accept the point about how politically dispersed we are in the south-west compared with regions such as Scotland, which has a national Government who can work with the UK Government. We do not have that in the south-west; we have councils and we have Wales, which is a devolved nation. It is harder to put everything together in one place, and various organisations, such as Celtic Sea Power and the new Cornwall FLOW Commission, are starting to do that, but leadership will be so crucial as we move forward. Finding out where that will come from—whether it is national leadership or regional leadership—will be a very important function of what we do going forward. I thank you for your time, Mr Efford, and I thank all hon. Members for participating in today’s debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered floating offshore wind in the Celtic Sea.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This is just a point of clarification for me. It is probably really simple. On the larger rate, over £500,000, and the lower multiplier, one witness said that it could still apply to hospitality, retail and so on, so it could still be applied to big hotels and grassroots music venues even if they are over the level. Is that right? Jim McMahon: At the moment, any property over £500,000 would be subject to the higher value. We are not looking at the moment at sectoral exemptions, but clearly we will take into account the evidence sessions and the discussions that will happen tomorrow. However, it would be fair to say that if you are a retailer with such a square footage that the value is over £500,000, you are likely to be a very big department store, a big out-of-town shed or a supermarket. The assumption in the system is that if you can afford to occupy and run a space of that size, there is room to pay additional business rates on that basis. In the end, it is about giving it to that ultimate use, which is the smaller retail, hospitality and leisure uses that are the backbone of many communities.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a quick question. I am glad you are here, Mr Lord, because we were talking about the super tax and the £500,000 limit. I am from Cornwall, so I completely understand what you said about large hotels. Will other parts of the leisure sector, such as theme parks, the night time economy, music venues and theatres, be impacted by the super-rate? Sacha Lord: Nightclubs will certainly be impacted. Obviously, a nightclub is a much larger space than a pub, so sadly they will suffer under this legislation.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am going to try again. You are talking about the EHCP and saying that this might impact on some of the children and parents with EHCPs. The Bill sets out that private schools that are wholly or mainly concerned with the provision of education for children with EHCPs will retain their relief. So do you think there will be much impact on those children? Do you think that will mean they would have to move schools, given that the measure is in there? Dr James: If they are retaining their relief, hopefully they should not have to. It would be very detrimental for people with children with certain types of SENs to have to move schools—not just to the state sector: move schools full stop.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What percentage are we talking about across the board—theatres, theme parks and so on, and hospitality? I think you said 7%, which is fairly low. Kate Nicholls: If you look at hospitality venues, which would include nightclubs and the larger hotels—it would not include theme parks necessarily, but it would include campsites and holiday parks—you are looking at around 700 premises. Of those that pay business rates, that is around 1% of total businesses, but it accounts for 7% of employment and close to 11% of turnover, so they are quite big. They are a disproportionate proportion of our tourist infrastructure in terms of employment. In certain locations, they will be up to 20% of local employment, so it is quite significant. My understanding is that the Bill could provide respite for them, because there is an opportunity to apply different rates of a super charge for different types of businesses. We can differentiate on business use above the £500,000 threshold. We urge the Government to do that, and will work with them as the Bill and the consultation go forward, to ensure that they take advantage of that, so that we do not treat a large distribution centre or fulfilment centre the same as a hotel or nightclub.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I was going to bring in hospitality and leisure, which is probably something I will ask other witnesses about later. I am from Cornwall, where we have some big leisure and hospitality sites. To look at exemptions purely for shops— Helen Dickinson: There is absolute recognition that there should be other exemptions for larger premises if the goal is about retail, leisure and hospitality.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am from Cornwall, where we have full business rates retention, so that puts a slightly different spin on it. Given that that varies across the country, maybe you could mention that. You talked about high street rents going up or down. I come from a place where there are lots of seaside towns and limited space by the water. A lot of our properties are owned by faceless corporations or insurance funds, so the rents are not remotely responsive. They have stayed high for a long time because they are seen as an asset on a balance sheet. We have struggled very much with that. For some places—maybe you would disagree—the business rates are even more important because the rents either take a very long time to have an impact or we are just left with empty properties for a very long time. Would you agree? Stuart Adam: I think I would disagree. Actually, it is possibly even more true in the cases where properties are owned by big, faceless corporations, because clearly they will want to set the highest rent they can get away with, but the amount of rent they can get away with will depend on the demand for that property, and the demand for the property depends on the level of business rates and rent attached to it. You would expect rents to adjust in the long run. How long “the long run” is is an interesting question. There is some evidence that it starts to happen in a relatively short period—something like three or four years—but the evidence on that is not great. The rent adjustment probably happens more quickly than it would have 20 or 30 years ago, because commercial rent contracts have become shorter and there is more use of things like commercial voluntary arrangements, which allow rents to adjust more quickly. It can take a fair number of years before rents are renegotiated, contracts come to an end and so on, but I would still very much expect it to happen.