1. Whether he intends to review the memorandum of understanding governing relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. (147620)

I do not intend to review the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the devolved Administrations. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor.

It is clear that Strathclyde police and the Met worked very closely and effectively over the incident at Glasgow airport. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether counter-terrorism should be regarded as a devolved matter and, bearing in mind the seriousness of the threat posed to the United Kingdom, whether indeed it should be?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. Counter-terrorism is a reserved matter. Our experience of the police investigations over the past week or so suggests that it is probably fixed as a reserved matter. In fact, devolution fits quite comfortably into that, even where policing is devolved, as it is in Scotland, where Strathclyde police, as he rightly points out, played a blinder, to coin a phrase, in the work that they did in co-operation across the UK.

I understand that my right hon. Friend does not need to review the memorandum of understanding, but will he, in his discussions with the Scottish Executive, take the opportunity to raise the recent announcement that could result in the loss of 900 jobs in my constituency if the Freescale closure goes ahead? Will he impress upon the new Scottish Executive that it is much more important to fight for jobs in Scotland than to talk about separation from the United Kingdom, which would put investment in Scotland at risk?

I understand the concern that my right hon. Friend, as the constituency Member for East Kilbride, shares with the 900 people who might lose their jobs if Freescale closes. He will know that the Scottish Executive gave significant support—about £1.9 million of regional selective assistance—to the company when it was known as Motorola. These matters are, and have been, the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, and they should not take their eye off the ball in meeting their responsibility to ensure that they create and sustain jobs for the benefit of people in Scotland—a record that we were rightly proud of having achieved when we ran the Executive.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attack on Glasgow airport makes it more important than ever that we improve public transport access to our Scottish airports? That means investment in heavy rail into Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport, as well as the new tram line to Edinburgh airport. Will he ask our new Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), to make it clear to the Scottish Executive that they should accept the democratic decision of the Scottish Parliament, let us get on with investing in trams and public transport and work with the British Government?

My right hon. Friend has a certain expertise in relation to transport. However, without that expertise, but as one who regularly uses both airports, I know how important it is that we build the infrastructure. It is important for not only security, as we saw from the attack on the airport building in Glasgow, but the sustainability of these drivers of the economy. I echo what he says. The will of the Scottish people in relation to these transport links is clear and democratically expressed, and we in the UK Government, particularly in the Department for Transport, stand ready to be of any assistance that we can in achieving that will.

The arrangements between the UK Government and the Scottish Government have worked particularly well in the past few weeks since the terrorist—

Order. Hon. Members must allow the hon. Gentleman to express himself. He is in order and it is important that others allow him to speak.

For those who could not hear me the first time, the arrangements between the Scottish Government and the UK Government have been working particularly well since the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to praise all those involved in countering the challenge of terrorism in Glasgow and elsewhere?

That is probably the easiest question that anyone has ever asked me at the Dispatch Box, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I have absolutely no difficulty in repeating what I have said consistently since the incident: all those involved in responding to the immediate circumstances—those present at the scene, members of the public, those who provided services, members of the uniformed services who showed extraordinary bravery in difficult circumstances and those involved in investigating and responding to events—have worked very well and they are a credit to their services, themselves, Scotland and the United Kingdom. This is a fine example of those in the United Kingdom working collectively, and good evidence for why we should keep that Union.

It is almost as great a pleasure to question the right hon. Gentleman on Scotland from the Back Benches as it is to question him on defence from the Front Bench.

Should there be, as is widely feared, a proposal to close one of our three naval bases, and the right hon. Gentleman receives representations from the Scottish Executive that it should not be Faslane, but gets suggestions, while wearing his Ministry of Defence hat, that it should be, how will he resolve such a conflict of interest?

The hon. Gentleman asks not only a speculative question, which he knows I will not answer, but a complicated, speculative question. I think that I can respond to what underlies the question. I pride myself on the fact that every decision I made as Secretary of State for Defence, and in every other ministerial portfolio I have held, was made in the interests of the responsibilities I had in the job. I will continue to make decisions on defence in the interests of the defence of the United Kingdom, so there will be no conflict of interest.

As a fellow Ayrshire Member of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend extend to Glasgow Prestwick the congratulations and willingness to give support shown to Glasgow Abbotsinch? Prestwick was able to take diverted flights that day and the next without a single loss to the time-scheduled business of the airlines.

Everyone who played their part in ensuring a response throughout Scotland’s transport infrastructure that Saturday afternoon and into the Sunday, to ensure the safety of passengers and the public, deserves praise. Indeed, those at Glasgow Prestwick airport, which is just at the edge of my constituency, but unfortunately not in it, although it is in that of my hon. Friend, are entitled to credit for what they did to respond. That added to the safety of the people of Scotland, but also to their ability, given that many wanted to go on holiday that day, to do so with the minimum of disruption.

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position, and I congratulate him, and the Minister of State on a well-deserved promotion.

The initial answer of the Secretary of State notwithstanding, does he not accept that the division of responsibilities between this place and the Parliament at Holyrood is now a topic that is ripe for review, as Jack McConnell, Wendy Alexander and others have argued? If he were to join me in leading the call for reform of the constitutional convention, he could put his Department at the fulcrum of that debate.

Like the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who leads the hon. Gentleman’s party, I am wary of invitations to join anyone, lest the doors open in a fashion that one does not expect. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. I understand that, like me, he has dual responsibilities and I congratulate him on his promotion to both those challenging jobs. I look forward to working for him—sorry, with him. [Laughter.] It was bound to happen. I look forward to working for him as a citizen of Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman, like me, was around in Scotland when a lot of the work was done, and he knows fine well that the devolution settlement, which was intended for the long term, took a long time to agree.

It was a process.

The hon. Gentleman says it was a process; we need to check the quotation that the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) constantly uses, because I think that he has it the wrong way round. In any event, to get back to the question, the settlement took some time.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the members of his party never gave up their ambition of federalism. I understand that—they are entitled to come to the Chamber and ask questions that are designed to mask that federalist ambition. My view is that the settlement, which was cast for the long term, has not yet lasted that long term. It is still robust enough in its current form to serve the people of Scotland. He knows that the Scotland Act 1998 has a pragmatic mechanism for adjusting the settlement, if necessary, by orders in the House. I believe that there were 18 last year. The solution is perfectly pragmatic and can be adjusted. We need to spend less time arguing about the constitutional issues to do with the settlement and more time making it work for the people of Scotland.

May I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the emergency services and members of the public who showed such bravery in the face of the incident at Glasgow airport?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Scotland Office and wish him well in his endeavours. I also welcome the new Minister of State. Given that we are all three staunch Unionists who are committed to making the devolution settlement work, I hope that we will make much common cause in the months ahead.

I do not want to begin by telling the Secretary of State how to do his job. However, I encourage him to eschew the complacency of his immediate predecessors and take a direct interest in the evolving mechanisms to allow full, frank and effective working relationships between London and Edinburgh. If it is not his job to review the memorandum of understanding, will he point out to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor that it states that,

“this document will be reviewed by representatives of the administrations at a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, at least annually and updated as necessary.”?

Like devolution, the memorandum of understanding is a pragmatic document. It was intended to serve not the processes but the people of Scotland. It has served the people of Scotland, in that methods of working in the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of the memorandum have been found to benefit them. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should have meetings for the purpose of meetings?

The Secretary of State has already made it clear that he understands that some Members of the Scottish Parliament interpreted the Government’s actions in recent times as compromising the spirit, if not the letter, of the memorandum. What can he say to the House today to reassure Members of the Scottish Parliament that arrangements between London and Edinburgh will be based on mutual respect? What steps will he take to ensure that all branches of the UK Government, including the Prime Minister’s office, are fully engaged on that basis, regardless of the opportunities that arise to highlight political differences?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no interest in playing politics with my role of representing Scotland in the Cabinet or being the Minister who is responsible for ensuring that the devolution settlement works for the people of Scotland. I know from my conversations with him before I took the job that he has no interest in playing politics, either.

We should all act against the words that we sometimes use, and I will live up to that. I intend to work co-operatively—I have done it, both across the Chamber and beyond the Chamber with other Governments, in every ministerial post that I have had. I am therefore certain sure that I can co-operate with other Scots politicians.

2. What recent discussions he has had with the chief executive of Digital UK on digital switchover in Scotland. (147621)

I have met Mr. Ennals on various occasions and I look forward to meeting the recently appointed national manager for Scotland, Paul Hughes, in the near future.

I congratulate the Minister on his promotion.

It is important to ensure that, when we convert to digital, the area that the terrestrial signal covers improves. Will the Minister commit the Government to ensuring that at least every household that currently receives a terrestrial analogue signal can get a reliable digital signal after the switchover without having to pay a minimum of £150 for satellite?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Not every household can get an analogue signal currently, although 98.5 per cent. of the population can. I have reminded the House on a number of occasions that that affects many of my constituents in Inverkip, who cannot get an analogue signal. About the same number—98.5 per cent.—will get a digital signal, so the vast majority of people who can get one signal will get the other one. I understand that, because of engineering and geographical constraints, it is not possible to say that every single person will get a digital signal, but 98.5 per cent. of people get analogue and the target is for 98.5 per cent. or above to get digital.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many elderly people in communities in Scotland who regard television not just as a little bit of joy in the corner, but as a necessity of life. Will he assure me that such people will be taken care of and be given the free boxes where they are entitled to them? Will he also ensure that companies that try to move the goalposts and to make money out of the situation will not be able to do so?

My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. The Government have ensured that around £600 million is available as part of the BBC licence fee settlement, to ensure that vulnerable people—not just pensioners, but others—will receive the help and support that they need. We understand that for large numbers of people in society television is not just a source of entertainment but a vital source of information and companionship. As we move into the digital era, with more and more of the spectrum available, the range of services that people will be able to access through television will be much broader. It is vital that nobody is excluded from that because they do not have the financial means. The Government are committed to ensuring that that does not happen.

3. When he next expects the plenary joint ministerial committee to meet. (147623)

The Government are aware of calls for a meeting of the joint ministerial committee and will consider this proposal.

May I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful response? May I also commend him for the constructive and positive way in which he has engaged with the new Scottish Government? That contrasts sharply with his Back Benchers and with some of his still-in-denial colleagues in Edinburgh. It is five years since the plenary committee and most of the other joint ministerial committees met. Whereas that was perhaps excusable when Labour ruled the roost in all the devolved Administrations, it is unacceptable when we have a dynamic new SNP Government in Scotland and a Plaid Cymru Deputy First Minister in Wales. Does the Secretary of State accept that the joint ministerial committees have a vital role to play in improving dialogue, and will he ensure that they meet as early as possible?

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have not noticed the dynamism of which he speaks. I have noticed a number of announcements that appeared to be comparatively easy hits, but the real business of government is yet to challenge the Scottish Executive. When it does, we will see just how dynamic they really are.

That said, I have ministerial responsibilities and I will carry them out appropriately. I will work co-operatively with those who work in the best interests of the Scottish people. That also means not creating another level of process through meetings, if those meetings are unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the MOU talks about the joint ministerial committee, but it also says that most contact

“should be carried out on a bilateral or multi-lateral basis, between departments which deal on a day-to-day basis with the issues at stake.”

That is how things work now, and they work well.

If the plenary committee is to meet, does the Secretary of State agree that it will require the kind of approach to which he says he is committed, which is to recognise that devolution is a continuing and developing process that needs constructive engagement? On the other hand, Scottish Ministers from the Scottish Parliament need to recognise that they do not have a mandate for independence.

I am sure that the Executive in the Scottish Parliament know fine well that they do not have a mandate, because they can count. They know that about two thirds of the people in Scotland voted for parties that seek to maintain the Union, and for obvious reasons—because the Union serves the people of Scotland well and has done for some considerable time. I should point out, however, that the right hon. Gentleman slightly misrepresents my position. I am a devolver, but I am not an evolving devolver. I will ensure that the settlement, which I think is the right settlement, works properly for the people of Scotland, but let us test it.

4. Who will undertake his ministerial responsibilities in his absence on other official duties; and if he will make a statement. (147626)

As Secretary of State for Scotland, I work closely with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns). As is normal practice, he will undertake duties on my behalf if I am absent on other official duties.

How does the Secretary of State find enough hours in the day to fulfil his roles as Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Defence—or is he Superman?

I am often tempted to give a one-word answer to certain questions at the Dispatch Box, but I will resist that temptation today. I would put myself forward either as Superman or as a time lord. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that, in considering whether to take on these responsibilities, I thought long and hard about whether both jobs could be done. Given the level of ministerial support that I was being offered, and the knowledge that I had of the responsibilities involved at the Ministry of Defence, I took the view that both could be done. Time will tell whether I was right. I suspect that we should stop speculating about how this appears and just see whether there are issues in either Department that are not being dealt with properly.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the Secretary of State said that he prided himself on always doing his jobs to the fullest. When it comes to the £50 billion of defence contracts due to be awarded over the next few years, which job will he be doing to the fullest in order to avoid any conflict of interest? Will he be lobbying for Scotland and the local defence industry, or for the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces? He cannot do both.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. Like me, he brings with him experience of defence issues, and I look forward to his questions both here and at Defence questions. I will give him the same answer that I give to this question every time: the decisions that I make as Secretary of State for Defence will be made in the best interests of the defence of the United Kingdom. I guarantee to do that, so there will be no conflict of interest between this and any other job that I have, whether it be as a constituency MP in Scotland, which I have been since I was elected, or as the Secretary of State for Scotland.

5. What recent assessment he has made of employment trends in Scotland. (147627)

Over the past five years, the labour market in Scotland has performed very strongly. The most recent figure, 2.53 million, marks a record high in the number of people employed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Unemployment in my constituency stands at 2.4 per cent., but it will rise substantially as a result of the actions of members of the Scottish National party and Tory-controlled West Lothian council, who are scurrying about my constituency as we speak issuing redundancy notices to hundreds of their own members of staff who, this time last year, were working for the best-performing council in Britain. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of the SNP and that Tory-controlled council, and tell the latter that it should go back to the negotiating table?

I am concerned at my hon. Friend’s news. It will be of some comfort to his constituents to know that employment levels in his constituency are at record highs. However, it will be of little comfort to them or to people throughout the rest of Scotland to know that, if the plan goes ahead to replace the council tax with a local income tax capped at 3p in the pound, it will leave a black hole in local government finances of nearly £1 billion—

Jackanory!

The hon. Gentleman says “Jackanory”, but it was actually the Institution for Fiscal Studies that demonstrated that. The only ways to plug that gap will be either to impose tax hikes on the hard-working families of Scotland or to implement massive cuts in local government services, which will mean hundreds more redundancies of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) has described. It is incumbent on those who advocate this policy to explain how they will fill that £1 billion black hole.

The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) suggests that redundancy notices are being sent around West Lothian. Is the Minister aware that the letters that have been sent out implement single status under the delegated powers given to West Lothian’s chief executive by the outgoing Labour Administration. The letters make it perfectly clear that not one single redundancy is intended and that not one single redundancy notice has come out—[Interruption.] Given the unemployment trends, will the hon. Gentleman have a quiet word with his friends to stop the trend of raising the spectre of redundancy where none exists? Will he recognise that it is the intent of West Lothian council that employment should be maintained for all staff?

The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to explain exactly how his party promises to plug that £1 billion black hole, but he failed to do so. He spoke about delegated powers to councils and also had the opportunity to explain his party’s policy to remove from councils the right to raise local revenue—[Interruption.]

What has that to do with the Question on the Order Paper?

Order. Let me deal with the proceedings of the House. If the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is trying to tell me about chairmanship, he is in the wrong union.

6. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on security issues in Scotland; and if he will make a statement (1476289)

The Scotland Office maintains regular contact with the Scottish Executive on security issues, including ministerial contact as required.

From time to time, the media expose gaps in our security systems, especially as far as obtaining security passes is concerned. Bearing it in mind that the terrorists at Glasgow airport appeared to have infiltrated the national health service, will the Secretary of State ensure that all future personnel requiring security clearance are subject to the most thorough background checks before passes are issued? Will he also liaise with the Scottish Executive to ensure that the police and security services carry out these checks where private companies or contractors are involved?

I trust that those who issue security passes in areas where danger to the public is possible—areas it is important to keep secure—recognise and live up to their responsibilities and their duty of care. That duty is shared not just by the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and their agents but by private security companies. I will take every opportunity I can to remind those who have the ability to influence that sort of practice that it is important that they live up to their duties.

12. How much her Department and its predecessors have spent on the home information packs programme. (148315)

As we have set out before, over the past three or so years the Government have spent £19.5 million on the development and trials of energy performance certificates and home information packs. Energy certificates could save nearly 1 million tonnes of carbon a year.

The figures do not include the considerable sums spent by assessors, inspectors and businesses on qualifications, training and preparing for the introduction of the HIPs regime. Is it not time that the Government apologised to them for the inept way in which they have handled the issue and the consequent impact on those people’s livelihoods?

We are concerned about the position in which energy assessors find themselves. It was certainly a problem when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors decided to take a judicial review against energy certificates. However, it applied to energy certificates, not HIPs. We are working with housing associations and local councils to bring forward some early energy certificates in the social rented sector so that we can also help to support some of the energy assessors in advance of 1 August when the programme begins.

Does the Minister share my astonishment and that of Milton Keynes association of home assessors that Tory MPs are trying to pin the blame for the debacle on the Government rather than on themselves? The Milton Keynes inspectors certainly know where the blame lies and were not surprised that none of the Tory MPs whom they contacted even bothered to meet them.

I am sure that that will have been a disappointment to those involved at Milton Keynes. This issue is about providing useful energy information for people’s homes. We already see such information on fridges and washing machines, for example, and it is about time we had it on our homes as well.

Will the Minister admit that the introduction of HIPs was too big a step to take in one go and that she should now go back to the drawing board and see how to make energy performance certificates work? I have a suggestion for her. The European directive requires an energy performance certificate only every 10 years, so the Government should look further into that and similarly require such a certificate only once every 10 years—irrespective of how many times a house is sold within that period.

I am slightly surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, because I think it important for people to have up-to-date information. If we want sellers and buyers to take decisions on the basis of information about their homes, the ability for them to do so if it is 10 years out of date—it could refer to fuel prices that are 10 years out of date—is much more limited. It is disappointing that he has decided to back the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ view on the issue. We think it right that there should be more up-to-date information. We have said that we will consult further, but we are clear about the importance of recent information.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there have been problems with the implementation of HIPs, but I am sure that she will also accept that the principle behind them—namely, that a prospective buyer should have as much information as possible before making an offer—is absolutely right. The major problem with our process of buying and selling houses in this country is the number of offers that are withdrawn because a prospective buyer finds out after making an offer information that they did not know about, but could have known about, before. Will she give a degree of certainty to those involved in the buying and selling process that the Government intend to pursue and go ahead with HIPs based on that principle?

My hon. Friend is right that there is a series of problems with the current way in which homes are bought and sold. In fact, first-time buyers often face the greatest pressures. One of the advantages of the home information packs is that they will provide information for first-time buyers for free that previously they would have had to pay for. We are clear that HIPs and energy performance certificates need to go ahead on 1 August. There are wider issues as well around home buying and selling on which we want to work with a range of stakeholders to improve.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on her enlarged and elevated position on the Government Front Bench?

You can talk!

She has risen to heights that I am not likely to achieve. That may owe something, of course, to her charm and abilities, but she must concede that it owes nothing to the fact that her Department spent £895,000 in three months marketing a policy, the centrepiece of which has been ditched, in which the latest research by Saga indicates that 50 per cent. of the population has no trust, and which the local authority inspectors who must enforce it say is unenforceable. Will she use her new Cabinet-rank status finally to lay this disaster of a policy to rest?

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post and congratulate him on his Front-Bench appointment—[Interruption.] His elevation, indeed. He should, however, think carefully about the position of his Front-Bench colleagues on this matter. They have said that they support measures to improve the environment, but the gap between the rhetoric and the reality is considerable. It is no good having warm words if they are not prepared to back measures to deliver warm homes.

It is on days like these that I really regret that there are not more engineers in the House, simply because, as my hon. Friend will know, the measures on the energy performance certificates and HIPs represent the most significant action that we have taken on the domestic market in terms of energy conservation and improving standards. Will she assure me that having started this process we will continue to monitor it and roll it out completely over the housing stock of this country?

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance and potential benefits of the programme. It could not only save customers and consumers about £300 a year on their fuel bills, but also save a million tonnes of carbon a year. That is important. It is why we have made it clear that it needs to begin on 1 August and then to be rolled out. We will monitor it. We are setting up a new advisory group, working with stakeholders, including estate agents and Which?, to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible and properly benefits consumers.

13. What steps she is taking to promote improvement of the energy efficiency of existing homes. (148316)

We have a range of programmes to support improvements in the energy efficiency of existing homes. As well as the energy performance certificates that are being introduced, we have the decent homes and Warm Front programmes, and are working with energy companies through the energy efficiency commitment. However, we recognise that we need to go further to improve the energy efficiency of existing homes.

I am sure the Minister agrees that it is most important to improve energy efficiency in existing housing stock. That would, after all, produce a win-win situation: warmer homes, lower fuel bills, and the tackling of carbon emissions from a significant source. When will the Government extend the code for sustainable homes to existing houses, as recommended by the Sustainable Development Commission?

The code will apply to new homes. As the hon. Lady knows, we have set an ambitious time scale for all new homes to be zero-carbon within 10 years. As for her important point that we need to do more for existing homes, the energy efficiency of several million homes has already been improved, and the energy performance certificates will not only give people information about energy efficiency but suggest ways of cutting their carbon emissions and fuel bills—improving the lagging in their lofts, perhaps, or installing cavity wall insulation. We want that information to be linked with financial support, for instance through the energy companies.

Is not one of the most important ways of encouraging householders to undertake energy efficiency measures the provision of reliable local advice? Will my right hon. Friend speak to her colleagues in other Departments about the possibility of extending the support of the Energy Saving Trust to one-stop shops and other ways of promoting such advice?

My hon. Friend is right, but it is not just a question of information. Improving energy efficiency has to be relatively easy: householders who find it a real hassle to obtain quotations or find out how to get work done are much less likely to make the necessary improvements. We are working with the Energy Saving Trust to find ways of making it easier. We also see a potential for the private sector to step in. Some companies are considering “green mortgages”, which are linked to advice and suppliers. We will need to go further, however.

I, too, welcome the Minister to her extended role.

I am sure the Minister knows that the 21 million homes in this country are the economy’s biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions, and that at least 15 million of them will still be here in 2050. Has she decided when she might begin to implement the powers she has had since 2004 to require the upgrading of those homes? That would cut bills, improve comfort levels and tackle climate change. Can the Minister assure us that, in her new role, she will work hard with the Cabinet to persuade it to make progress on this vital aspect of climate change?

It is good to see that the hon. Gentleman is still is his place. I know that he has a long history of strong involvement in this issue, and cares about it very much.

We are considering a range of ways of helping people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. As I have said, we have already helped several million householders with our existing programmes, and over the next few years the new energy certification programme involving energy companies is expected to help 3 or 4 million people to install cavity wall insulation. Those are substantial improvements.

I think we should concentrate first on the incentives that we can introduce and on cost-effective improvements such as cavity wall and loft insulation, but technological improvements are also needed. We need to find more cost-effective ways of improving solid-wall insulation, for instance, if we are to make a real difference in the future. We hope that the zero-carbon new homes programme will create technological spin-offs that can be applied to existing homes as well.

Do we not already have legislation that could be used to implement tougher and bolder minimum standards for energy efficiency? House builders are failing to meet the existing minimum standards on a grand scale. Why does the Minister not give the building inspectorate greater sanctioning powers and resources to enforce the new higher standards?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about enforcement. There were weaknesses in the enforcement of the 2002 building regulation improvements. Since then, we have enhanced the enforcement of the latest improvements in the building regulation standards of 2006 by putting in place a broad programme of training and other steps such as compulsory pressure testing. We need to go further, however, and we will over the next 10 years progressively set higher building regulation standards for energy efficiency in order to cut carbon emissions from homes; we are clear that improved enforcement must be a part of that programme.

14. What account she plans to take of public opinion in the restructuring of local government in Cheshire. (148317)

We are now assessing bids for unitary status against the criteria specified in our invitation. We will have regard to all information available, including all forms of public opinion, when measuring against the criterion that any change must have a broad cross-section of support from stakeholders and partners.

Why has the Department not consulted local people on plans to restructure local government, except for those representing bodies such as unelected quangos? Is the right hon. Lady aware that a recent Cheshire-wide MORI poll that showed that in the borough of Congleton there was a derisory 16 per cent. support for a single, county unitary authority, only 27 per cent. support for a two unitaries solution, but 55 per cent. support for improved working of the two-tier system? Will she agree to meet me to discuss the only viable solution, which is supported by the majority of my constituents and myself?

I am well aware of the hon. Lady’s deserved reputation for assiduously ensuring that Ministers know of her constituents’ views. We have during this entire process been very clear about the criteria that would be assessed. Local authorities have rightly conducted extensive consultations with their communities in a variety of ways, such as via telephone polls and face-to-face surveys. One criterion is that there should be support from a range of stakeholders as well as from the public, because if we are to achieve the desired efficiencies and joined-up working through the bids we must ensure that there is broad support.

The hon. Lady asked for a meeting; we will reach decisions on these matters in the near future, and as I must be absolutely scrupulous about the information I receive, it would not be right to enter into lengthy discussions. If the hon. Lady wishes to send in some representations, I am sure that I will be able to receive them, but I must be extremely careful about the process that I adopt in reaching decisions on these issues.

As another Member who represents a constituency in the historic county of Cheshire, may I invite my right hon. Friend to agree that Cheshire’s current two-tier structure, where responsibility for planning, transport, housing and social care is split between the town hall and the county hall, is completely confusing to the Cheshire public?

I am very conscious of my hon. Friend’s tremendous record in ensuring that her constituents’ views are made clear to Ministers. She will know that the invitation for bids to restructure resulted in 26 bids, 16 of which are still being considered, and that there are two options for the Cheshire area. Restructuring must be about achieving increased efficiency and better joined-up working and getting results for the local community. I am well aware of the points my hon. Friend makes, but I am sure that she understands that I must consider all the representations from, and views of, the public before reaching final decisions.

This is almost a Cheshire love-in. May I say in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) that a unitary system of local government would result in a democratic deficit? As our new Prime Minister has talked a tremendous amount about trusting the people and localism, should not the views of individuals carry as much weight in this consultation as those of the quangos and stakeholders who appear to be the main people and bodies being consulted by the Government? Does the Secretary of State agree that an improved two-tier system will maintain localism? Let me also say that I wish her well in her new post—bubbly though she is.

Again, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s energy and vigour in representing his constituents. He will know, I hope, of my commitment to ensuring that local people have more of a say over their communities, and the challenge for me is to turn that into a reality, rather than simply warm words, and that is what I will endeavour to do. I am sure that he would accept that it is important that, as well as consulting the public, we are sure that all the partners that have to work with local government broadly support the proposals, because this is about getting better results from bringing people closer together at local level, whether that is the health service, the local police or local government. That is what can have the most impact on improving services for local people.

I had an opportunity yesterday to welcome the right hon. Lady to her post. I assure her that in the last 24 hours nothing has diminished my enthusiasm for her new role, which I say in the spirit of an Essex love-in.

Will she confirm that in a letter to her Department the Chief Secretary to the Treasury described the unitary council bids, including the one from Cheshire, as a “waste of time”, warned that costs “may overrun” and said that the Treasury

“simply cannot afford to bear”

the risk? I do not wish to rub the right hon. Lady’s nose in it, but given that the Treasury thinks that it will be expensive, her predecessor thought that it was a distraction, and that ballots throughout England have rejected the unitary proposals, will she do the sensible thing and reject that ridiculous reorganisation? Will she also accept the hand of friendship from this side of the House, as we promise to work closely with the Government to achieve better two-tier working and value for money for the electorate?

I, too, had the opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post yesterday. I am afraid that on this occasion I will have to resist his blandishments and his hand of friendship. He will know that the criteria by which these bids are to be judged clearly include affordability, as well as broad support from stakeholders across the community. We will therefore look very closely at the numbers. I would always expect the Treasury to be very concerned about affordability, as indeed are we, because if these proposals are to go ahead, they need to be practical, realistic and deliver real improvements for local people. I am not interested in simply moving the pieces around the board, but—like, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman—in genuine results, greater efficiency and higher quality services for local people. Those are the criteria by which the bids will be judged.

15. What recent discussions her Department has had with environmental groups on the planning White Paper. (148318)

Ministers and officials from my Department have met environmental groups a number of times in the preparation of the White Paper and since publication. Other Departments have done the same. That is part of the priority that we are giving across Government to gathering views as part of the current consultation on our proposals.

My hon. Friend will be aware that environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have stated that the planning White Paper

“opens the door to nuclear power stations and airports which will take the UK’s fight against climate change backwards”.

Can my hon. Friend allay the fears of the public and confirm that those are unfounded remarks? Can he also confirm that the proposals will make climate change a priority, ensure security of energy supply in the future, and put an end to the delaying tactics that have stopped companies investing billions of pounds in this country?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The proposals are designed to reinforce, not reduce, the public’s chance to have their say at every stage in the process. The proposals will ensure that the planning system in the future reinforces our efforts to tackle climate change and reduce emissions. It is the case that major projects, especially green and other energy projects, have often taken too long to get through the current planning system, and that is another reason why our reforms are so important.

As this is a day for congratulations, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and hope that he enjoys this particularly difficult portfolio.

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, because his head was probably in his brief this morning, that the Secretary of State refused to rule out the abolition of green belt protection. Will he be advising the Government’s new unelected planning quango to give the green light to green belt destruction? What assessment has he made of the effect of concreting over the green belt on climate change and flooding? Are not the Prime Minister’s warm words on listening to communities, which my hon. Friends have mentioned, just empty rhetoric and spin from a controlling, centralising Administration?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady at least for her opening comments; I knew that they were too good to last.

Let me be clear: we remain completely committed to the principles of the green belt. The proposals in the White Paper on planning do not change our policy on the green belt.

This morning I sponsored an event at which a number of green non-governmental organisations expressed their concern about the future of public involvement, especially in respect of major infrastructure proposals. Does my hon. Friend understand the concern that giving councils too much discretion in how they engage the public will result in many doing the minimum necessary? Do we not need a statement of minimum rights of public involvement? Do we not need to ensure that council statements of community involvement are tested for their fitness?

The White Paper proposals are right in looking to local councils to put in place, for the majority of their work, consultation and involvement arrangements that are suitable to the circumstances. On the fears of Friends of the Earth and other green groups about public consultation in relation to the proposed process for major projects, I say again that big projects will entail public consultation and will involve the public at every stage—in the preparation of new national policy statements and project proposals by developers, and with reinforced rights of access to inquiries, which may take place as part of the planning process.

I attended the meeting of a coalition of 14 environmental groups that has just been mentioned. Those groups do not believe the Minister’s reassurances about the intent of the new planning legislation. What will Parliament’s role be in deciding the new planning framework? Will there be a free vote, as councillors are legally obliged to have when sitting on planning committees, or a whipped vote?

I would recommend that the green groups that somehow have doubts about our intent and the detail read the White Paper more carefully. We have invited comments on all the key proposals, and the Department has published detailed consultations on four other specific areas. I welcome the discussion with those green groups. At the close of the consultation in mid-August, we will come to a view of how to proceed with the proposals and with legislation for the future.

I welcome the way in which the new guidance on planning and climate change associated with the White Paper will put local authorities at the heart of ensuring that new buildings are energy-efficient. Will my hon. Friend consider giving local authorities a similar role in relation to listing old buildings, particularly those from the 1950s and 1960s such as the civic centre in Plymouth, which, incomprehensibly, has been listed without any account being taken of its huge carbon footprint?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to use this question to raise that issue. Happily, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is sitting on the Front Bench. She will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments, and I am sure that she will respond in due course.

16. How many local authorities in England are registering landlords in designated areas. (148319)

The Department for Communities and Local Government has received and approved applications from four local authorities to establish areas for selective licensing of private rented housing. The applications were from Salford, Middlesbrough, Manchester and Gateshead.

I welcome my friend to his important new post, where I am sure he will do well. Pendle has more than its fair share of rogue landlords, but the local authority inexplicably seems to be dragging its feet on selective licensing. Can we learn anything from the authorities he has just cited about their experience of bringing in selective licensing?

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to the Treasury Bench. He has been a strong and doughty champion of selective licensing in the face of a Lib Dem council in Pendle. I suggest that he continue in that strong role, fighting for a decent quality of life for residents by putting pressure on the local authority to ensure that there is selective licensing in due course.

17. If the Minister with responsibility for the fire and rescue service will discuss with the Home Department the development of new techniques to preserve forensic evidence of criminal activity at scenes of fire. (148320)

The fire and rescue service has a long history of working with the police at the scene of fires where criminal activity is suspected. Recent research commissioned by the Arson Control Forum, a Government-sponsored body, has focused on detection and investigation using forensic evidence. My Department and the Home Office are both represented on the forum and take a full part in its deliberations.

Will the Minister consider finding time in his diary for a visit to the arson control taskforce based at Kettering fire station, so that he can be fully briefed on the exciting new initiatives to combat arson between the Northamptonshire fire and rescue service and the Northamptonshire police?

I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman’s invitation, but I am already well aware of some of the very good work in Northamptonshire, where the fire and rescue service works closely with the police, and through a recent campaign to remove abandoned vehicles, actually reduced the number of car fires by 60 per cent. That is very effective work and those involved locally should be congratulated on it.