Proceeding contribution from Iain Wright (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 5 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No. 3) Bill.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on both points. We are exporting not just jobs but carbon emissions to elsewhere in the world where there might not be the same high level of regulation on carbon emissions. The point that I want to emphasise as much as possible is that my area is doing exactly what the Government want it to do—we are rebalancing the economy and have an emphasis on manufacturing and, in particular, export-based industries that can provide wealth and job creation. It seems that we are doing everything right according to the Government, but we are being penalised and not provided with a level playing field. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and the hon. Member for Redcar quoted the managing director and chief executive officer of Tata Steel's European operations. I want to be as balanced as I can. He praised the Government's enterprise zones and stated:"““It is good news that the Tees Valley is to be among the first of the government's newly created Enterprise Zones, as Tata Steel will remain a major employer in that region””." To expand on the quotes already given, however, I should add that he went on to state:"““The extension of the Climate Change Agreements and the return of the discount on the Climate Change Levy to 80% will come as modest but welcome relief to Britain's hard-pressed energy-intensive industries. However, these benefits are likely to be dwarfed by the introduction of the Carbon Floor Price (CFP), which represents a potentially severe blow to the sustainability of UK steelmaking. European steelmakers already face the prospect of deteriorating international competitiveness because of the proposed unilateral imposition by the European Commission of very significantly higher emission costs under Phase 3 of the EU Emissions Trading System. The CFP proposal will impose additional unilateral emission costs specifically on the UK steel industry by seeking to artificially ensure that these costs cannot fall below government-set targets which no other European country will enforce. This is an exceptionally unhelpful and potentially damaging measure.””" The Government need to ensure that there is a level playing field for energy-intensive industries in the UK, especially in the north-east. We must not be hindered by the unilateral imposition of added costs, and Europe must not be rendered uncompetitive by additional regulation on energy-intensive industries that means that less-regulated economies such as Russia and China benefit. That will not do anything to alleviate environmental pressures. I think amendment 12 would help the financial and economic environment for energy policy, provide the certainty needed for boards to make substantial investment in the UK and be the catalyst for wealth creation in my area. It would also help to safeguard the manufacturing capacity of vital industries. I hope the Government and Government Members will support it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 530 c1440-1
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accountancy Companies Costs Corporation tax Banks EU countries Environment protection Energy Electricity generation Industry International cooperation Investment trusts Pay Money Young people Tax collection Taxation Unemployment Carbon emissions Bank levy
- Legislation
- Finance (No. 3) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:03:46 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756673
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756673
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756673