1. What factors were taken into account in choosing the date of the carbon capture and storage competition announced in the energy White Paper. (140924)

The date was chosen to allow the minimum amount of time required to design a competition that would allow a number of companies to participate, and to ensure maximum benefit and value for money.

I am very disturbed by the Secretary of State’s answer. North sea investment has to confront the fact that decommissioning is coming and the clock is ticking. The Government knew that decommissioning was coming for the Miller field. Why did they not say at the outset that the project had no chance and that they could never make a decision in time? They will have to be much speedier in creating the criteria for investment in novel industries if we are to get new investment into this country. Will the Secretary of State work to see whether anything can be rescued from this project? What hope is there for gas gathering west of Shetland—

Order. That was an awful lot of supplementaries. There should only be one.

Let me deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman made. As I said when we discussed this matter yesterday, I am sorry that BP was not able to continue operation of the Miller field, but I should point out two things. First, BP always knew that there was going to be a competition. Seven other companies are interested in working with the Government towards building a carbon capture and storage scheme and, as I said yesterday, it is not open to the Government to hand over a contract such as this to one company, when we know that others are in the field. Secondly, even if BP had remained in the competition, there was of course no guarantee that it would have been successful, because as I said, other firms are interested. I hope that BP will be able to work with us again in future, and it has said that it would like to do that. So far as Scotland is concerned, Scottish Power has publicly said that it is interested in participating in this competition in relation to either Longannet or Cockenzie.

My right hon. Friend is right to recognise the speed at which we need to work to advance these technologies. In this regard, we should take particular account of the energy technologies institute, which his Department and the Treasury are trying to foster. As my right hon. Friend knows, Loughborough university is a key bidder for one of the partnerships, which will be rolling out later this year. Will he assure us that these technologies and the various institutes that are being set up across the country will be with us as soon as possible? As we learned from the G8 this weekend, if we are to have a positive impact on climate change, we need to act within days and months, rather than years.

On the energy technologies institute, five groups of companies have shown an interest and we will be making a decision. We have set out the timetable and the short leet is being worked through. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—this is a unique venture. The public and private sectors are working together and looking at new technologies, of which carbon capture might be one. However, the process is separate from the one relating to carbon capture and storage.

A critical part of the answer to this question is the amount of nuclear power in the energy mix. What is the Secretary of State’s best estimate of the time that it would take to commission and construct a nuclear power station? Starting from now, when would he expect a new nuclear power station to be on-stream?

First, as the hon. Gentleman will know, following the court judgment in February the Government now have to consult on whether nuclear should be part of the mix. I know that some Members find that frustrating, but that is the law and the Government are bound by that decision. Once the consultation has finished we can reach a final conclusion and, as I said, that needs to be done this year. It is very difficult to estimate how long it would take between the start of the process and a new nuclear power station opening. Decisions on whether nuclear power stations are to be built will be taken by the generators themselves, not by the Government. Of course, it would greatly assist that process if we could improve the planning regime, and I hope that we will get all-party support for that.

Is not the delayed decision on subsidies being used by BP as a smokescreen? Is it really serious about investing in carbon capture and storage technology in the United Kingdom? Centrica is still pressing ahead; that sets an example, does it not? We need this technology to access the many hundreds of millions of tonnes of clean coal that still exists in this country, not least the 800 million tonnes in the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State of Trade and Industry.

I am absolutely sure that BP is serious about looking at new technology such as this. The problem that it had with the Miller field in the North sea was that the field had reached the end of its life, and keeping it going was proving quite expensive for BP, which, as a company, obviously had to have regard to that. It has been suggested in some quarters—by the nationalists in particular—that the BP project was somehow ready to go. Yes, BP had spent some money on it, but as I said yesterday, we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds over a 10 to 20-year period. That is why it was not open to the Government simply to have said to BP, “Okay. You’ve expressed an interest—let’s go with you”, when we knew that at least seven other companies—there might be more in future—are interested in working in this area.

Let there be no mistake: I hope that we can become a world leader in this field. No other Government are involved in this process to this extent. Nowhere in the world is there any commercially operated carbon capture and storage, and it is important that we should be part of that, because we can see the potential for this country and, crucially, for countries such as India and China. Let us not forget that China is building a new coal-fired power station every four days on average.

That last point is exactly why it is so important to make progress with CCS. The point about Peterhead is that it was years ahead of any other project in this country. The White Paper says that a competition will be launched this year and the full chain will start to be demonstrated at some point between 2011 and 2014. Can the Secretary of State give us some idea of when any new project from that competition will reach the stage that BP had already reached at Peterhead?

The hon. Gentleman knows that although BP had done a lot of preliminary work and spent quite a bit of money, it was still in the foothills of development of the whole process. Other companies were doing exactly the same work. I understand why the hon. Gentleman, representing the constituency that he does, and the leader of his party, as the local MP, were keen to see BP proceed, and I am sorry that it has withdrawn. However, as I said yesterday, it is not open to the Government to hand over a contract of this value without being satisfied that we have considered all the possibilities. That is what we are doing and that is the right way to proceed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer first promised a demonstration project for carbon capture at the end of 2005. We will now have a competition only at the end of 2007. We are still in the foothills and the Secretary of State ain’t much of a Sherpa on this issue. Given such a delay, can he tell the House when carbon storage will be sufficiently advanced to deliver low-carbon electricity to homes? If he thinks that there is a risk that that will never actually happen, how will he ever meet his emissions targets?

As I said two weeks ago when we launched the White Paper, I think that carbon capture and storage has great potential. However, precisely because it is not in commercial operation anywhere in the world at the moment, we cannot be certain. To all those people who say that we do not need nuclear because we have CCS, I say that until we can be sure that that technology actually works, it would be foolish to rule out possibilities such as nuclear. As of yesterday afternoon at least, that is the hon. Gentleman’s position too—

It has always been our position.

“Always been our position”! I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his sense of humour.

2. When he will announce which post offices will close following his recent statement. (140925)

On 17 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government’s response to public consultation on the post office network. Now that the Government have announced their decision, it will be for Post Office Ltd to restructure the network strategically through 50 to 60 local area implementation plans over the next 18 months. Following initial input from sub-postmasters, Postwatch and local authorities, the plans will include closure proposals which will then be put to local consultations ahead of the final decision.

My constituents from Braunstone Town in the north, down through Blaby and Dunton Bassett to Lutterworth in the south, have contacted me about their concerns that their post offices will close. Since the Government came to power, they have had the urban network reinvention programme, which closed some 3,000 post offices, and now we are talking about closing perhaps another couple of thousand. When will the Government see the countrywide network of post offices as a fantastic opportunity for the delivery of services and goods, instead of restricting the freedoms of small businessmen—sub-postmasters—to carry out business, and undermining that business by withdrawing the Government services that they may deliver? The customers like getting those services from post offices.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have supported Post Office Ltd to the tune of £2 billion since 1999. We are committed to support it with another £1.7 billion until 2011. He neglects the fact that losses have increased from £2 million a week a few years ago to an anticipated £4 million a week this year. The Trade and Industry Committee and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters both say that that situation is unsustainable. With the new access criteria laid out by the Secretary of State, we are trying to ensure that by 2011 the network is in a much better place and we have a viable national network for the future.

I am especially concerned about the risk of social exclusion in rural areas if post offices are lost. Can my hon. Friend at least assure me that where there is a village shop with the post office, support will be given to existing shops, the encouragement of community shops and the retention of the basic postal services of cash, payment of bills and parcel postage? Will he undertake to give a clear steer to the regional development agencies to support such enterprise in shops in rural areas?

My hon. Friend raises some very good points about how the network can best be protected. In his statement of 17 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined a number of joint working arrangements worthy of examination. We have said that our aim is to establish ways to work even more closely with the devolved Assemblies and the Local Government Association by 2011, and that, in the restructuring programme, Post Office Ltd and Postwatch must take account of a variety of conditions over and above economic and commercial criteria, such as economic impact and local transport arrangements. The Government are committed to supporting the post office network with the commercial assistance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, and I am sure that we will get the best deal possible.

The Government have laid down all sorts of criteria, including the availability of public transport, but Post Office Ltd acts as judge, jury and executioner when it puts forward proposals and then makes the final decision. Will the Government put in place an independent referee who can look at the closures in every area to make sure that they conform to the access criteria?

Post Office Ltd has been charged with the responsibility of drafting the plan, but it will do so in consultation with local government and Postwatch. The plans will receive quite a bit of attention before they are published, so they should be quite well refined. Even so, hon. Members will be contacted about a week before the plans are published, and there will then be a six-week programme of local consultation in which local communities, organisations and individuals will be able to make their feelings known. The plans will not be solely in the gift of Post Office Ltd, as there will be a robust consultation exercise.

In my constituency, there have been some very creative ideas about how to deal with the problem of post offices. For example, the post office that has been opened in an equestrian shop has been very successful. However, one of the sub-postmasters in my area decided that he did not want to renew his licence, and his office was closed. How is the Department supporting the post office network in cases where people want to retain a post office but the sub-postmaster does not want to continue?

In his 17 May statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the access criteria that have been laid down require Post Office Ltd to make sure that the service across the UK is as universal as possible. Moreover, that service will be planned: it will not be the ad hoc service that we had before. Post Office Ltd is also developing new products to try to make sub-post offices more attractive. As has been noted in previous debates, it is offering new financial products such as foreign exchange facilities and insurance. In addition, the new saver account was opened last year, and a contract to provide broadband services has been signed with BT. I see from press cuttings this morning that Post Office Ltd is moving into the mortgage market as well. All those innovations are to be welcomed, as they demonstrate Post Office Ltd’s ambition to provide more services on top of the traditional ones that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Does the Minister agree that, in spite of the improvements made in recent years by Royal Mail’s management and staff, the company’s finances remain in a very worrying state? The financial problems facing it and the Post Office have been made worse by the Government’s failure to agree a long-term package for the future of the business. Does he accept that a decision by postal workers to strike would cause very significant damage to the Royal Mail, and that a strike would put even more services and post offices at risk? Will he therefore join me in urging all postal workers to vote against strike action for the sake of the business in the long term?

I have to take issue with the hon. Gentleman, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made several statements in recent years in which he has outlined the considerable financial support and assistance that the Government have given to Royal Mail Group. I do not agree that we have not set out a very strong business plan for the group, including Post Office Ltd, for the future. As for possible industrial action, operational matters such as that are the direct responsibility of the company’s management. The negotiation of pay and conditions is a matter for the management and the union involved, and the Government are not—and should not be—involved. Both relevant parties have the responsibility to resolve all such issues, and the Government encourage them to do so as constructively as possible. We do not want the business to be damaged; our commitment of the past few years demonstrates that we want the recent good progress to continue.

3. How many (a) voluntary and (b) compulsory post office closures there will be over the next two years under the scheme he announced in May; and if he will make a statement. (140926)

The measures announced on 17 May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will maintain a stable national network of post offices and ensure reasonable access with the right services in the right areas. This will include the compulsory closure of a maximum of 2,500 post offices. Closure decisions will not be determined by sub-postmasters' preferences although we expect that there will be cases where it makes sense to accommodate the wishes of those who want to leave the network.

I live in the constituency with the greatest concentration of senior citizens and the most centenarians, and I cannot emphasise strongly enough to the Minister what a devastating effect the closure of post offices has had on the local community. Senior citizens find it difficult to cope with new technology. Having closed 10 post offices already in Southend, West, will the Minister now give a commitment that there will be no further post office closures in my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give that commitment. The restructuring programme is a matter for Post Office Ltd in consultation with Postwatch and local authorities. He will want to make his usual robust representations on behalf of his constituents when the time comes. I have to say, however, that the absence of a Conservative party policy on the programme leaves the hon. Gentleman in a weak position. The Lib Dems have a policy—it is not a very good policy, but at least they have one—which is to privatise Royal Mail and use the money raised for a short-term injection. They would then be back here in three years’ time with continued losses haemorrhaging from the network. We will do our best to protect the universal national network and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will play his part on behalf of his constituents.

It is no good coming out with, “It’s not me, guv” because the bottom line is that the Minister is the shareholder; he has the upper hand over the Royal Mail. I want him to use that upper hand to ensure that there will be no compulsory closures in Chorley and that more services will be offered so that we have a suitable network of the type we expect for the people of Chorley.

I could refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a moment ago. I am sure that he, too, will make the strongest possible representations for his constituents. However, he must acknowledge that the £4 million a week losses of Post Office Ltd do not present a sustainable position. We want to protect the network, which is why we are investing a further £1.7 billion and introducing 500 outreach outlets and innovative ways of delivering services, and why we are encouraging Post Office Ltd to develop new products.

Up and down the English-Welsh border, individual post offices serve communities in both England and Wales. Will the Minister give an assurance that the consultation on the future of such post offices will include all the communities that they serve and not just those limited to the nation in which the post office is located?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that although Post Office Ltd has said it will bring forward proposals for 50 or 60 area groups, these will not be cliff edged; there will be some overlap. Common sense will have to prevail. There may be some double consultation, but I am sure that these valid issues will be taken into account.

Will the Minister answer the question: should post office workers strike—yes or no?

It is our view that a strike would damage the industry, so we do not think it would be in the best interests of the company or individual staff members if there were a strike. We hope that the matter can be resolved through constructive discussions. We know and hope that discussions will take place following the Communication Workers Union conference this week. We have demonstrated our commitment by putting our money where our mouth is with additional resources for the company. We do not believe that a strike would be in the interests of the company, the employees or, for that matter, the service.

4. What steps he has taken to promote the development of a sub-sea electricity transmission network. (140927)

The Government are working with Ofgem and industry to establish an offshore transmission regime. We have already taken a number of decisions necessary to help us to do that.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. I welcome the announcement made by Ofgem this week about island connections, but does he accept that, whatever the outcome of the Beauly to Denny proposal, a new approach will be needed to meet future transmission needs beyond that proposal? Will he give political leadership and instruct Ofgem to provide the regulatory space to enable a much more ambitious approach to developing a sub-sea transmission network to be taken in future around Britain’s coasts to allow the potential of marine renewables to be fully exploited?

The hon. Gentleman raises two separate issues. We have already taken a number of decisions along with Ofgem to encourage the offshore regime. I want to see more offshore wind farms, and of course they have to be connected to the grid. He also raises the Beauly to Denny transmission lines, which are onshore and the subject of a public inquiry at the moment. Of course we and Ofgem will continue to ask how we can help to improve matters, but there is no getting away from the fact that at some stage the transmission lines have to be built. People who say that they are in favour of renewable energy will have to face up to the fact that the energy has to be transported and that their objection to the power lines is contradictory.

Looking at the plans for the super grid, it appears that the establishment of more wind turbines is planned in the North sea, the Irish sea and the channel. As the Secretary of State has said, all that electricity has to be transported. It must be welcome that we are to have more turbines out at sea, because there is less controversy about that. Will he look into the opportunities for under-sea turbines, which could be linked into the same grid?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We can and ought to do more to find more marine-generated sources of energy. Unfortunately, at present the technology is pretty much in its infancy. Through grants, the Government support experimental wave generation and I am extremely interested in encouraging tidal generation. One of the reasons we have proposed changing the way in which the renewables obligation works is to give greater incentives for developing more difficult and newer forms of power generation, but I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I too welcome the Ofgem consultation launched yesterday, entitled “Unlocking the Renewables Potential of Scottish Islands”. May I encourage the Secretary of State to impress on Ofgem the urgency of resolving this question? Will he remind Ofgem in the nicest possible way that when it makes its calculations of transmission charges from island groups, it should factor into the equation the capping power in the Energy Act 2004?

I am sure that Ofgem will bear that in mind. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the consultation. Obviously, we need to let that run and then take the next set of decisions, as I said to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander). We all want to make it easier to generate more offshore power and to help with connections from the islands to the UK mainland.

5. What provisions the Sellafield security contract will contain on public safety. (140928)

The plan details all the security arrangements at Sellafield.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Does he agree that health and safety and security safeguards must be paramount before we give any contracts?

Yes, safety is absolutely paramount at Sellafield and at other nuclear sites. That is why the responsibility lies with the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. I am sure that they will do everything they can to ensure that the sites remain secure.

Will the Secretary of State be very kind and clarify the Government’s proposals for the future of nuclear power? How much of the costs of Sellafield and the storage and disposal of nuclear waste will be met by the state and how much will have to be met by the private sector?

In relation to much of the waste at Sellafield at the moment, we set up the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to fund its disposal. It will almost certainly be stored in deep underground facilities. I think the hon. Gentleman was getting at what would happen in respect of waste that may come from any new nuclear plant that is built. We have said that the industry—the generators who make proposals—will have to meet the construction, running and decommissioning costs, and thus their share of the storage. There could be a joint storage facility, in which case they will have to pay their share. Although we might wish things were otherwise in relation to historic waste, the problem has been building up since the 1940s and I am afraid that it will have to be substantially dealt with by the public sector.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in addition to Sellafield the operation of nuclear stations generally presents safety and security challenges. Is he aware that the latest figures show that staff numbers at the Health and Safety Executive, which includes the nuclear installations inspectorate, will have fallen by 17 per cent. by 2008? Will he give an assurance that the inspectorate’s staff is kept at an appropriate level and that the health and safety regime at nuclear stations, which covers workers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, will also be maintained?

As I said to our hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat), it is important that we maintain the right safety regime in respect both of the sites themselves and, importantly, of people employed at nuclear sites. It is for the HSE to decide on the right staffing; I am told that it has held extremely constructive discussions with the Treasury on that point.

6. What progress has been made in achieving the Government’s target of an end to fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010. (140929)

Projections indicate that about 2 million vulnerable households are currently in fuel poverty in England—fuel poverty being defined as having to spend more than 10 per cent. of one’s income on fuel. We certainly acknowledge a significant increase since 2004 because of energy price rises, but fuel poverty among vulnerable households is still significantly below the 1996 level of 4 million, and we have taken further steps in the energy White Paper to increase efforts to tackle fuel poverty.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply and I appreciate the Government’s commitment to alleviate fuel poverty, but will he introduce legislation to force energy suppliers to offer social tariffs for those in most need?

We are in discussion about social tariffs. Certainly the supply companies have a social responsibility to protect their vulnerable customers. Obviously, at present, energy prices for householders are coming down again, which will have an impact on the fuel poverty figures. There is a range of other measures to tackle the issue, from pension credit and winter fuel payments to energy efficiency programmes in the different nations. That is at the heart of the Government’s programme to tackle fuel poverty. There is no one answer, but a range of strategies, including corporate responsibility and the social tariff.

Let me press further on the issue of social tariffs, because average domestic energy costs are still more than £1,000 a year. In the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that he would require companies to put in place

“a proportional programme of assistance”

for vulnerable customers. Will the Minister tell us what that means and how long the energy supply companies will have until he finally puts in place minimum standards for social tariffs? Perhaps he could indicate what those standards would be.

Let us first acknowledge that many of the supply companies have made good progress on social tariffs in recent years, but there is more to do. We need development and coherence as part and parcel of the wider strategy that I briefly outlined earlier. There is a job for Government in that regard, as well as for the supply companies. As the hon. Lady knows, over the coming years we want to move to a situation where supply companies will no longer simply be in the business of trying to persuade us—including vulnerable households—to use more gas and electricity, but will become energy service companies that help us not only to keep warm and have hot water but to live in energy-efficient dwellings. That is where we want to go in the long term, and it is particularly important for vulnerable households.

The energy White Paper makes it clear that the 2010 target to remove vulnerable households from fuel poverty will not be met, and that 1.2 million fuel-poor households will remain in fuel poverty. At the same time, the energy companies are seeking to reduce the proportion of their energy efficiency commitment that goes towards the eradication of fuel poverty. Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that he will not entertain such a reduction? I am talking about the 50 per cent. of the commitment that is currently earmarked for fuel poverty eradication.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He is an acknowledged expert in the field and a passionate advocate of the need to tackle the terrible problem of fuel poverty. The significant point about the 50 per cent. figure is that, with the increase in the importance of the energy efficiency commitment, even if that percentage comes down, more actual help will go to vulnerable households, because of the development of the size of the programme.

Does the Minister, on reflection, agree that in the past the Government’s expenditure has focused too much on subsidising the payment of higher bills by those on low incomes, and not enough on the fuel conservation measures that he now rightly welcomes? Could not the Government look again at the balance of their spending? Surely it is better to save people the need to spend so much, rather than to subsidise them.

I understand the issue, and of course, this is a question of balance. When the Government came to power we recognised that many of our eldest citizens—often women in their 80s, living alone—had been seriously neglected, to put it mildly, in income maintenance programmes. That is why we had to develop pension credit, which has given a good many extra resources to the poorest one third of our older households. That is also why we brought in the winter fuel payment. The situation was serious and we needed to take some early action. Of course, in the longer term—we started this straight away—energy efficiency measures to warm up the homes of the oldest people are important, not least given that all the survey evidence shows that it is often the most vulnerable who live in the most energy-inefficient dwellings. The energy efficiency commitment, Warm Front, and the equivalent programmes in the other nations are a crucial part of the strategy, and are related to the big and urgent concern about climate change.

Among the poorest families in my constituency are those who live in mobile home parks. Mobile homes are notoriously energy-inefficient. Does the Minister share my surprise about the limited range of products supported through Warm Front to assist people who live in mobile homes to insulate them properly? I am thinking, in particular, of measures to provide for the external insulation of mobile homes to improve the energy efficiency of the walls.

That is an extremely good question—and I wish I was more able to give an extremely good answer. I certainly recognise that although many people have mobile homes, it is often the poorest—those on low incomes, who are vulnerable in all sorts of ways—who have to resort to such homes. My hon. Friend raised the issue of what technology and devices exist. I will reflect on that and write to him.

The Minister has twice mentioned energy efficiency. Smart metering has an important role to play in achieving that, so will he explain why the recent energy White Paper opted for a programme based on clip-on electricity displays, rather than proper smart meters? Why is he going for the most basic option when real smart meters would do much more to stimulate the microgeneration industry and reduce fuel poverty?

It is not either/or: what the hon. Gentleman refers to as clip-ons are an immediate response to enable people to have a better sense of the energy that they are expending in their homes so that they can monitor it. But we also have a programme to develop smart metering and we are committed to that. It cannot be done straight away; it is an extremely expensive programme. But we are developing it and it is important. If we are to win the war against climate change, an important part of our strategy must be to have engaged citizens who understand how much energy they are using.

7. What assessment he has made of the impact of the pricing and access regime on Royal Mail. (140930)

Price controls and their associated impact assessments are a matter for the postal regulator, Postcomm. The current price controls run until 2010.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Communication Workers Union is concerned about the way in which the regime is progressing, to the extent that it believes that it is clear that if private companies are allowed to cherry-pick what they do, it will ultimately lead to the end of Royal Mail as we know it? Some 40,000 jobs have already been lost in Royal Mail; will he agree to meet the CWU as a matter of urgency to try to clarify exactly what is going on?

I do not think that we accept that argument. The price control regime is designed to allow Royal Mail to align its prices more closely with its costs. That is why Postcomm permitted pricing in proportion last year, following a specific request from Royal Mail. In March 2007, Postcomm initiated a review and public consultation on the price control of Royal Mail’s access charges. It has not yet taken a decision on whether any amendment is appropriate, but a public consultation is planned for July, and a decision will be made some time in the autumn.

What assessment have the Minister and the Department made of the impact of the price control regime on the business community? In an ever-competitive regime, what incentives are there for the business community to remain with the Post Office, and to continue to be among Royal Mail’s major customers?

As I said, that role, and responsibility for the pricing regime and the impact assessment, rests with Postcomm. It is carrying out its review, and has set a programme that runs until 2010. It made an adjustment last year, when it introduced prices in proportion, but that role and responsibility lies with it.

8. What plans he has to build new nuclear power stations in the south-east. (140931)

Any new nuclear power stations will be built by the generators, and it is for them to make proposals with regard to sites, but I have said on many occasions that it is likely that new build will be on existing nuclear power station sites.

There seems to be an extraordinary mismatch between the extremely gung-ho rhetoric coming out of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street on nuclear new build and the spin that they are putting into the media, and the paucity of information coming from the DTI and the total lack of clarity about the strategy for implementing the proposals. Will the Secretary of State at least tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the long-term impact of rising sea levels and associated coastal erosion on siting new nuclear power stations on the coast? I am thinking particularly of Dungeness near my constituency.

If he has not already done so, the hon. Gentleman might like to read the consultation document on the future of nuclear power that we published a couple of weeks ago, in which many of those issues are considered. On sites, the Jackson report, which was published on the same day as the energy White Paper, looks at the various criteria that will be considered, and obviously the suitability of existing sites is one of those. As I have said, I think it more likely than not that any new build will be on existing sites, but an assessment would have to be made on whether such an existing site would be suitable for new building in the future.

May I underline the comments made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)? The Secretary of State said in both his responses to the hon. Gentleman’s questions that it is likely that existing sites will be used. We must adapt to climate change in this country; it is likely that by 2050 sea levels will have risen by 40 cm at least, and that storm waves will get higher. To use existing sites, most of which are on the coast, whether in the south-east or in the rest of the UK, is asking for difficulties for future generations, and I beg my right hon. Friend to examine very carefully the appropriateness or otherwise of using coastal sites for new nuclear build.

As I said a moment ago, any proposal coming forward would have to be considered on its merits. Every possibility would have to be looked at, and indeed that is what happens now, and what has happened with regard to previous building. However, if my hon. Friend reads the report that we commissioned, which was published last week—indeed, I am sure that he has done so already—he will see that a number of criteria have to be considered, although it was the report’s considered opinion that existing sites would probably be better. As I say, the merits of each proposal will have to be considered individually.

9. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland on issues outlined in the Energy White Paper. (140932)

I have many such discussions with my colleagues.

The Secretary of State will be aware that his predecessor mentioned that with a new generation of nuclear power stations, the necessary investment in efficiency and renewables would not be made. What will he do to ensure that Scotland develops its full renewables potential, and that that is not put at risk by a future generation of nuclear power stations?

I want Scotland to do as much as it can to get more renewable energy—and it would be greatly assisted in that regard if Liberal Democrats would help those developments to go ahead, rather than objecting to each and every one of them.

One of the welcome proposals in the energy White Paper is for a cross-Government communications campaign to inform people in time for this winter of the steps that they can take to assist in dealing with fuel poverty. It is not clear from the White Paper whether that cross-Government campaign will apply only to England, or throughout the UK. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that it applies to the entire UK, so that this winter my constituents get the benefits of the measures proposed in the White Paper? They suffered last winter, and we do not want the same to happen this winter.

It is certainly our intention that whatever measures are put in place, they apply right across the UK. As my hon. Friend knows, the schemes to help insulation are operated differently in different parts of the UK, but the end result is exactly the same. He is right to say that it does not matter where anyone lives in the United Kingdom; they should all be entitled to whatever assistance we can make available to help them tackle problems like fuel poverty.

10. What discussions his Department has had with Canatxx Ltd and its associated companies on gas storage under the River Wyre in the last six months. (140933)

Our officials meet companies from time to time to keep abreast of energy developments, and during the past six months met Canatxx Ltd once.

The Minister will be aware that Canatxx gas storage company intends to store thousands of tonnes of gas below the Wyre estuary, which is currently designated by the European Union as a special protection area. He will also be aware that current applications across the rest of the United Kingdom already exceed the UK storage requirements for gas. Is he therefore convinced that the need to avoid damage to the environment around the Wyre estuary is overridden by the national need to store gas?

May I simply record that I understand that a public inquiry has been held on Canatxx’s Preesall application, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is considering the inspector’s report. My Department is not involved in the decision, and the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the project. More generally, however—I am not talking about that project—we recognise the need for more gas storage. Storage capacity could more than double if all planned and proposed projects go forward. In terms of our energy security, one way or another we need to increase gas storage—but I am not commenting on the hon. Gentleman’s question.

11. If he will apply the Furniture and Furnishings Regulations 1998 to imported furniture at the point of entry into the UK, with particular reference to sofas. (140934)

The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 apply to imported upholstered furniture, including sofas, destined for the domestic market. These regulations apply at the point of entry to the UK and are enforced by trading standards officers. HM Revenue and Customs liaises with trading standards bodies on furniture imports as appropriate.

From my previous correspondence with his Department, the Minister will know that we have a problem locally with imported furniture—mostly sofas—that is illegal because it does not meet our furniture and furnishing regulations, being brought into the United Kingdom from eastern Europe; as a result, the public are being put at risk. Trading standards officers and the police have a real problem keeping track of the hundreds of lorries that bring the furniture in once they are in the country, and as a result much of that furniture is disappearing into the ether. Will the Minister explain to the House why—

Order. That is far too long a supplementary question.

The Department has provided funding of some £900,000 over two years for what we are calling “scambuster” pilots to operate in a number of areas—[Hon. Members: “Scambusters!”]. You are right—it is a silly name. The scambuster projects are designed to help trading standards with a range of scams, not just this one. Although the number of deaths from fires has diminished, fire safety remains crucial, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. We have taken action in respect of one of the countries involved: we have arranged for the Polish embassy to write to Polish manufacturers to make them aware of the regulations. When customers buy sofas, it is important that they do so from reputable dealers rather than in the informal market. The customer needs to beware, but the Government are taking action, which is also important.

12. If he will make an official visit to Totnes to discuss the situation of industry in the area. (140935)

I am advised that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions will be pleased to consider the possibility of including a visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency when she next visits the south-west region.

I do not know whether the Minister is aware that Dairy Crest, which produces milk and has done so for the last 86 years, is in danger of closing, with the loss of 200 of the work force. Can he tell me whether regional aid might be available to help modernise the plant, and will he encourage the management to produce a work plan so that the unions and I can understand what is needed if the company is to continue in business?

Obviously, there is regret at the loss of jobs at Dairy Crest and the impact that it will have on local people and the local economy in Totnes. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Jobcentre Plus is working closely with the company to ensure that employees affected receive the advice and support that they need to find alternative employment. An application for designated large-scale redundancy status is being prepared that would provide immediate access to Jobcentre Plus jobsearch and training programmes. The regional development agency is also in discussion with South Hams district council about the future employment use of the site. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions in a few days’ time.

20. What the timetable is for ratification of the Council of Europe convention against trafficking. (140944)

21. When the Government expect to implement article 13 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings for women victims of trafficking. (140946)

22. If she will make a statement on the trafficking of women in the UK. (140947)

Action Plan, published in March, sets out the actions that the Government are taking to implement the convention. Ratification without full implementation would be an empty gesture. The inter-ministerial group on human trafficking monitors progress on both implementation of the action plan and the convention. In line with convention requirements, we already operate a 30-day reflection and recovery period for victims accepted on to the POPPY project, but we will, of course, consider whether there is a need to adopt a longer period. The convention imposes a set of minimum requirements.

May I urge on the Minister the importance of setting a date for ratification? I appreciate, as she says, that it will impose on the Government certain legislative requirements, but I remind her that the UK Borders Bill, which would be an eminently suitable vehicle for those legislative changes, is currently before the other place. The necessary changes could be made in the Bill.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman in particular, and hon. Members across the House more generally, want to know the period over which we will be able to put in place all the actions to ratify the convention. However, I am not able to give a specific date, precisely because a range of issues need to be addressed, all of which will take different amounts of time, so it is not possible to say when exactly we will reach the final point of being able to say that everything has been done. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that we take this issue very seriously. Our action plan sets out exactly what we are going to do, and we will do it as quickly as we can.

No. 21, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary question would help us to get on.

I was just limbering up for it. Is the Minister aware that we need to encourage women who have been trafficked to come forward and give evidence against their traffickers? Bearing in mind that there have been only 30 convictions of traffickers in this country over the last four years, does she agree that a longer reflection period—in France, Germany and Holland, it is 90 days—would encourage more women to come forward, which they are not doing at the moment?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As I set out in my answer to this group of questions, we are considering whether a period beyond that minimum should be introduced. I also reassure him that, from my conversations with the head of the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre, I know that longer periods are allowed in individual situations. I take his point, however, that that may not be having the effect that he seeks because it is not known about more widely. We will certainly consider that point.

What would the Minister say to a number of groups who are increasingly concerned that women who have been trafficked are often treated as criminals rather than victims of crime? What discussions is she having with other Departments on the provisions for those women?

The point of the United Kingdom action plan on tackling human trafficking was to ensure that the focus shifted from the criminal aspects to the needs of the victims. The inter-ministerial group, which involves all Ministers concerned with this matter, meets regularly and monitors the action plan. Together, we are considering what more we need to do to provide for victims.

May I ask my hon. Friend what the Government are doing about child trafficking?

Child trafficking is an area of great concern, and we are doing more research on the extent of the problem and how we need to respond. The police have conducted a number of operations to deal with the matter, and we will continue to do more to address the issue.

Will the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to work closely with Churches Alert to Sex Trafficking across Europe, which, as she knows, is trying to develop a network of places in safe houses across the country to match the Government’s plans?

My hon. Friend is right, and I have regular contact with that organisation. We are considering how to develop facilities, services and support for victims, and discussions are ongoing in the Department for Communities and Local Government about how to make greater provision for victims in terms of accommodation and support.

Will the Minister tell the House what work is being done with the Department for International Development? Clearly one of the main issues is to address the source of the problem, so that we do not have to pick up the pieces in the UK. According to my discussions with many non-governmental organisations, more information is needed locally. Many people have been trafficked half-voluntarily, thinking that there would be something good at the end of it, so better education programmes would probably cut some trafficking at source.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am pleased to say that the Department for International Development has given the issue some priority. It has a strategy on the matter, and its actions in relation to preventing trafficking at source are integral to our UK action plan.

I accept the Minister’s point about the steps that need to be taken prior to ratification. But has the Minister considered best practice in other countries, such as Italy, which has a conviction rate for traffickers four times better than that of the UK, although it too has not ratified?

Clearly, we want to learn from best practice elsewhere. In that regard, one of the issues is how people are made aware of trafficking. From reading the information gathered by Select Committee members who visited Italy, I know that prostitution there is much more visible, which is not necessarily desirable. Therefore, although we must learn from best practice, we should also ensure that our practice is relevant to this country, and not merely lift wholesale something that works elsewhere.

The fact that so many questions about this subject are on the Order Paper shows the strength of feeling in the House, and rightly so. Fortunately, there is no need for the moral debate that took place in the times of Wilberforce, because every Member of the House hates the evil of modern slavery, and we all want to stop it. I commend the Government on what they have done so far, but will the Minister tell the House whether they are taking steps to co-ordinate the powers of the various public authorities who have responsibilities in this matter, such as those relating to police, immigration, licensing, health and safety and so on? Only through an orchestrated approach right across the board will we be able to counteract this dreadful, evil crime.

I entirely agree. That is why, when I talk about trafficking, I refer particularly to the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre, which brings together a range of disciplines. The hon. Lady has raised some issues that go beyond what the centre does, but I know that it is aiming for the most effective practice possible, and I believe that through co-ordination—with people working together in the same centre—we can achieve the objectives that she has rightly identified.

23. What assessment she has made of the Government's progress in tackling homophobic bullying; and if she will make a statement. (140948)

The Government take the issue of homophobic bullying seriously wherever it occurs. We delivered protections from homophobic bullying in the workplace in 2003, and we enforced protections in schools in the “goods and services” regulations which came into force this April. When such bullying amounts to homophobic harassment outside the workplace, the discrimination law review will consider the best way of addressing the real issues that people face.

I know that every school must have an anti-bullying policy. Will Ministers consider whether that policy should include a requirement for a specific anti-homophobic bullying element, and also whether one teacher in each school, primary and secondary, should be given responsibility for ensuring that the policy is implemented and effective?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work in raising the profile of such issues. I know that he and his party have campaigned for precisely such training and attention to the issue in schools. Clearly, homophobic bullying is serious wherever it occurs. To date the Government have decided to take a slightly less bureaucratic approach than the one that the hon. Gentleman suggests by establishing, together with Ofsted, where weak anti-bullying practices are in operation, helping schools to improve their focus on bullying of all kinds, and working with Stonewall to establish how homophobic bullying in particular can best be tackled in a school environment.

24. If she will meet the Engineering and Technology Board to discuss the promotion of science, engineering and technology as a career path for women. (140949)

The Engineering and Technology Board and the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology are developing a memorandum of understanding to promote the role of women in science, engineering and technology. I should be delighted to meet the Engineering and Technology Board.

I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. As she will know, engineering no longer means walking around with a heavy monkey wrench. Although when I used to go to the Soviet Union in the 1980s I would see women engineers with heavy monkey wrenches, nowadays it is much more a question of thought, intelligence and design. Does the Minister not agree that women have a particular skill in engineering and ergonomics—designing what is right for the man-machine, and woman-machine, interface—which makes this an ideal career path?

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right—although, as he knows, many women do possess the physical strength to carry around various tools. We know from the latest data that 72 per cent. of women with such qualifications are not working in the science, engineering and technology professions, and I hope that everyone involved will do more to return women to those professions, because we need their skills.