House of Commons
Thursday 28 November 2013
The House met at half-past Nine o’clock
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Energy and Climate Change
The Secretary of State was asked—
I agree that there should be a power sector decarbonisation target for 2030. That is why the Government are legislating so that a decarbonisation target range can be set in 2016, once the fifth carbon budget has been set. When that target has been set, we believe it will be the world’s first such legally binding decarbonisation target.
I am interested to hear that the Secretary of State agrees with me. We have all-party support for the Climate Change Act 2008, a recommendation from the Committee on Climate Change that the target for clean power should be set now, rather than later, and a Bill going through Parliament that could get rid of all the uncertainty. By delaying this decision until 2016, is he not simply creating greater investor uncertainty, risking green jobs and kowtowing to the Chancellor?
I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Lady, now that she has told people that she will not be standing at the next election. She has been a doughty champion of green issues in the House. However, I do not believe that this short delay of two years will have the impact that she describes. She should remember that we have the EU 2020 targets for energy efficiency, renewables and emissions; the Climate Change Act, with the carbon budgets running up to 2027; and the Energy Bill which provides the most secure framework, the levy control framework going up to 2020, and industrial strategies. This country is arguing for the most ambitious 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target of any EU member state. It is just not true that investors think that this Government are not committed to this issue.
This Government talk loudly, and at times obscenely, about the costs of decarbonisation, but they say little about the benefits, such as the potential for green jobs on Tyneside, which leads the world in clean power. If the delay is not causing the lack of investment, why has investment in clean energy fallen by billions of pounds since this Government came to power? And what is the Secretary of State going to do to bring more green jobs to Tyneside?
The hon. Lady should not talk down the sector or her own area. She ought to know, because we have debated the matter at the Dispatch Box, that £31 billion has been invested in renewable electricity since 2010. We have doubled the amount of renewable electricity generation since we came to power.
The whole Government, working with colleagues like the hon. Gentleman, are doing our very best to ensure that we get that supply chain investment in the UK for our green sector. He knows that we are working with him and other hon. Members from Hull to do just that.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the UK now has among the lowest emissions per capita and per unit of GDP in Europe. For example, they are 25% lower than those of Germany, which has just embarked on a programme of building coal power stations. Is there anything more we can do to help our European partners have any kind of meaningful targets?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are working with all our EU partners to raise ambition in the EU. This Government have proposed that we should have an EU target of a 40% reduction in domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and be prepared to go up to 50% if we can get a global deal in 2015. We are leading the way in Europe on ambition.
My right hon. Friend will have noted that progress towards the decarbonisation goal was interrupted this week by the withdrawal of the Atlantic Array offshore wind project off the north Devon coast. Is he concerned that if that were to be followed by other decisions by utility companies to withdraw from such schemes, we could lose control of those critical national infrastructure decisions? Is he content with a situation in which the big six and foreign utilities effectively have a veto over those critical investment decisions?
I do not see it quite as my hon. Friend does. We were initially disappointed when the decision on the Atlantic array was announced, but when we learned that it was for technical reasons and that the further analysis of the seabed that was needed would have increased the cost, we understood why it had been taken. My hon. Friend should be reassured, because the number of applications that we have received for final investment decision-enabling contracts for difference—the “go early” CFDs—has far exceeded our expectations. I believe that there will be some good news on offshore wind shortly.
As has been said, RWE pulled the plug on the 240 turbine, 1.2 GW wind farm in the Bristol channel this week, saying that it was not the right time to invest, although I accept that it also cited some technical reasons. That is the pattern with this Government: investment has gone down from £7.2 billion in 2009 to a point where it is expected to be £1.9 billion this year. Nearly four of the five projects coming on line since 2010 were started under Labour. Does the Secretary of State accept that his refusal to adopt a 2030 power generation decarbonisation target now is scaring away investment, damaging green jobs and jeopardising our future energy security?
That, of course, is absolutely not the case. If anything is damaging green jobs, it is the Leader of the Opposition and his irresponsible position on freezing energy prices. That has had a damaging effect on investment, and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) knows it. We have a very good record in this area, and I am looking forward to making more announcements of more investment.
The ability to switch supplier is a key driver of a competitive market, and it is important that we address areas where this is difficult. I therefore welcome the opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend the particular difficulties faced by customers on the “Total Heating, Total Control” tariff.
The Government are right to encourage people to switch their supplier to get a better deal. However, consumers on SSE’s “Total Heating, Total Control” tariff find in practice that they cannot switch because wiring and meters need to be changed and other suppliers simply do not want to know. What can my right hon. Friend do to make it easier for these consumers to switch?
My hon. Friend is right to say that customers who have dynamic teleswitched meters inevitably have a narrower choice of supplier. It is therefore all the more important that Ofgem ensures that the tariffs they are on are kept reasonable. I would like to discuss further with him how we might help those particular customers to switch more easily.
Following on from what the Minister just said, one reason why people want to switch from this tariff is that they are finding that although the headline increase announced by the company is high enough, they are being quoted sometimes twice that increase in their electricity prices. Is there anything he can do to press Ofgem on why there is such a huge increase in this tariff?
I shall certainly do that. When Ofgem last looked at this tariff, it thought that the price was reasonable compared with some other time-of-use tariffs offered by other suppliers, such as Economy 7. However, I am very happy to take the matter up again with Ofgem.
In taking the issue up with Ofgem, the Minister needs to emphasise just how trapped these people feel. They feel that they cannot shop around and they want to be completely reassured that they are getting the fairest deal possible. In the long run, will he examine whether it would be worth accelerating and prioritising the roll-out of smart meters for these customers to make it easier for them to switch?
As I have said, it is not satisfactory that dynamic teleswitched meter customers have a choice of fewer suppliers than other customers, although there are technical reasons for that. I am happy to take this matter up again with Ofgem to see what we can do to make it easier for such customers to switch.
A number of my constituents who have switched recently have been hit by significant charges—in one case, thousands of pounds. Given that switching is the Government’s main policy on energy, what can they do to ensure that mistakes are not being made by energy companies and that there is a fair deal for all customers who switch?
If the charges are at that level, it is clearly unacceptable. We will look at this with Ofgem to make sure that everybody is entitled to a choice— everybody is entitled to switch—and if there are particular difficulties with dynamic teleswitched meters, they need to be looked at.
I have had a number of representations on the level of green levies, and the Government expect to make a statement on the conclusions of our current review shortly.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. There is concern not only about the increase of the green levies, but about a lack of choice in where the green levies go. Is it feasible that on a household energy bill there could be a box for people to tick to show their preferred renewable to support?
Will the Secretary of State stand up to the Conservatives on this? There is no doubt that the Conservatives are using the green levy as a fig leaf. The fact is that we need an intelligent policy that delivers great environmental change in our country; he should not let the Tories defer that.
My colleagues and I will stand together. On the green levy review, we need to do all we can to help consumers with energy bills and I should have thought that the Opposition supported that, but I have made it clear that we will not do that on the backs of the fuel poor—we will keep our support for them in the levy—and that we will ensure that there is investment in renewable energy.
The House will be pleased to know that the social and green levies protect everybody, whether they are in rural Somerset or anywhere else in the country. On a number of occasions, I have made clear in this House and elsewhere my commitment to maintain the support for the fuel poor.
Why is the Secretary of State persisting with the carbon price floor tax, which is unilaterally damaging core foundation industries such as steel and chemicals, when even his predecessor says it has no green benefit and is simply about lining the Chancellor’s pocket?
The Chancellor introduced the carbon price floor at the beginning of this Parliament and confirmed the rates in the Budget this year. The purpose is to send a clear incentive message to people investing in low carbon, which I believe the hon. Gentleman supports. I also hope that he supports the compensation package this Government have put together to help energy-intensive industries, to support them and to help them defray those costs.
One element of the levies applied to consumer bills funds the renewables obligation certificate payments, as the Secretary of State knows. He will also be aware that a third of those payments go to generators in Scotland, but, with 8.4% of the consumer base, they are funded by bill payers across Britain. When Infinis, a Scottish-based renewables generator, published its flotation prospectus a couple of weeks ago, it cited the outcome of separation as one of its key risks. On Monday, the nationalists in Edinburgh published their plan for Scotland to separate from the rest of the UK, asserting that
“shared support for renewables and capital costs of transmission among consumers in Scotland and the rest of the UK”
would continue. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that that will definitively be the case?
I cannot, of course, guarantee that. Should Scotland decide to vote for independence, there would have to be a negotiation. We cannot prejudge that negotiation, not least because despite the publication by the Scottish Executive this week, there was a lack of detail on some key elements. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out to the House and the country that if Scotland votes for independence and there can be no guarantee of support for renewables in Scotland from English, Welsh and Northern Irish consumers, Scottish consumers and industry could see price rises.
Since 2010, more than 4.8 million insulation measures have been installed through Government schemes. For the average home, installing such measures can typically save between £25 and £270 on an annual energy bill.
This week, we have heard that excess winter deaths are up 29% on last year, with up to 31,000 excess winter deaths. That should be a national scandal. Why, in that context, have the Government abolished the duty to eliminate fuel poverty, why will he not agree to amend the Energy Bill to include mandatory minimum energy efficiency standards for the homes of low-income households, and will they reverse their opposition to a binding EU 2030 energy efficiency target?
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the winter deaths, but one has to say, being very objective about it, that there was a clear link between influenza and those deaths in the last period looked at.
We cannot be complacent about the impact of cold homes. That is why we have a national energy efficiency strategy—we are the first Government ever to have such a strategy—and why we have an ambitious public and market-based programme to roll out energy efficiency across the housing stock.
I am not unsympathetic to that idea, but the responsibility for building standards rests with the Department for Communities and Local Government. We have zero-carbon homes, but the key challenge for this country is the existing housing stock in which the vast majority of people live now and in which they will live for decades to come. The real challenge for us is not to build relatively few great homes but to retrofit the entire housing stock, to the benefit of everyone.
Following that answer and speculation in the press today, does the Minister accept that cutting the energy company obligation by extending the deadline for companies to meet it would punish the companies that have so far sought to meet the obligation, cause serious job losses in the insulation industry and, most important, leave vulnerable people who have been promised that they will have that work done sitting in the cold this Christmas?
I cannot prejudge any announcement that will be coming shortly, but it is clear to all of us that Labour stands for what is effectively a green poll tax. It is right behind regressive levies on bills; it has no interest in driving value for money. The coalition is standing up not just for green values but for green value for money. Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, we recognise that £112 on bills matters to hard-working families, and if we can get better value from green measures we will extract it. Only the coalition will ensure that we get good value as well as meeting our green targets.
With permission, I will answer this question and questions 5, 9, 13, 18, 20, and 21 together.
Order. The Minister is a little confused. I will try to rescue him. We have been advised of the desire of the Government to link questions 5, 6, 12, 13 and 14, and I am sure that that is what the right hon. Gentleman really has in mind. I should say for the benefit of the House that the reason why we cannot group questions 18, 20 and 21 is that they do not exist.
Driving household energy efficiency take-up to help consumers control their energy bills is at the heart of our approach, and with policies such as the green deal we have established the conditions to grow energy efficiency markets in Great Britain. Thousands of innovative businesses are investing in this new market, and more than 100,000 consumers have begun the green deal improvement journey to make their homes more efficient.
I certainly commend the NEA. I was delighted to attend its annual reception on Tuesday. I also commend my hon. Friend, whose record on fighting fuel poverty is second to none in the House. He has long been a champion of the fuel poor. We continue to work hand in hand with the NEA, developing the energy saving network. The Department has provided £900,000 to fund the creation of the network and the NEA is developing and delivering training to 500 energy advisers, and that is in addition to the community action awards on which we are also working with the NEA.
Earlier in the year the Minister said that he would have sleepless nights if his target of 10,000 people signing up to the green deal before the end of the year was not met. We are almost at the end of the year; is he preparing for a period of prolonged insomnia?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I did anticipate around 10,000. The number of people taking up finance so far has been significantly lower—about 1,200 as of last month. However, the extraordinary thing is that over 100,000 homes have had green deal assessments, and the compelling response has been that over 80% of the people who have had a green deal assessment are installing measures. If consumers like the green deal and the products and if they are installing the measures, the fact that they are not yet using the finance does not worry me. I am delighted that over 100,000 green deal measures are being installed in people’s homes. It is fantastic news.
Joyner PA in my constituency has been providing wall insulation to people in Islwyn for over 30 years, making homes energy-efficient. When I visited the company last Friday, I was told that applying for Government green schemes is slow and bureaucratic. What are the Government doing to address that?
I am not sure which particular schemes the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but if he would like to write to me, I would be happy to address his queries or concerns in detail. I take on board what he says about bureaucracy. That is why we have got rid of the community energy saving programme, which we inherited from the previous Government and which was incredibly bureaucratic. That is why we are looking to make the energy company obligation and the green deal less bureaucratic and as easy to understand for the consumer as possible. We will continue to iterate both schemes to make them as consumer-friendly as possible.
May I draw the Minister’s attention to a Lords amendment to the Energy Bill, which we will consider next Wednesday, regarding measures to tackle fuel poverty and using the energy efficiency certificates as a means of targeting help at the poorest households? Will he give some consideration to accepting that, or a form of it, as a way of targeting help at the poorest?
The Energy Bill is on course for Royal Assent and it is very important that it does not get held up. It has been considered in both Houses. It is absolutely imperative for unlocking investment that we proceed with passing the Bill as a matter of urgency, so we remain committed to that. I am always looking for new ideas on energy efficiency, but I think that we have in place the most robust framework and the most ambitious strategy that any Government have had, but we continue to look to improve that.
Opposition Members might have had a bit too much Red Bull this morning.
The figure was 219 at the end of October, but that is the number of measures installed using finance. The really exciting thing is that tens of thousands of green deal measures have been installed, with people using the cash-back or their own money. So compelling is the green deal that people want all the savings now. If people want to take all the savings now by recognising that green deal measures are a great investment, that is a good thing. We will continue to improve the finance offer, but the green deal is up and running and it is a long-term programme.
Earlier this month I was fortunate to hear a presentation to the Transcoco—Transition Community Corsham—group in Corsham by an early adopter of the green deal. Although he was satisfied with the payback period on his green deal loan, what was striking from his presentation was that the assessment revealed some pretty fundamental flaws in his home’s energy insulation, despite the fact that it was built less than 10 years ago. Will the Minister speak with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about the enforcement of the existing building standards on new housing developments, because the failure to do that is costing ordinary people a lot in their bills?
The hon. Gentleman is right. For 13 years, under the previous Government, there was lamentable enforcement of building standards. In fact, none of us can think of a single case that was prosecuted. He makes a very valid point. I will talk with my right hon. and hon. Friends in DCLG to see what more we can do to ensure that standards are adhered to.
The Government are providing help to consumers with energy bills in three basic ways: through direct financial support, with energy efficiency initiatives, and by boosting competition. In 2012-13, with the winter fuel payment, with the warm home discount, and with cold weather payments, the Government spent over £2.5 billion on direct subsidies to reduce bills. With the energy company obligation and the green deal, we are helping consumers to reduce bills permanently. Along with Ofgem, our policies in the retail and wholesale markets are intensifying competition to help consumers reduce their bills this winter and every winter.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is a complete con to pretend that fixing prices is going to help with bills, because no Government proposing or implementing that could fix the prices before or after the freeze period. The price freeze offered by the Opposition is not just a con but would not work.
Small businesses are important customers, and many have had huge energy price rises. They do not have the opportunity to switch easily; they do not even have a comparison website in order to look at what at other companies are offering. What are the Government going to do about this? Will they look seriously at helping small businesses with very poor margins, many of which are going under because they cannot afford energy costs?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have been working very hard on this with No. 10 and with small business organisations and looking at the real issues—for example, the automatic roll-overs that cause so many problems. We are gaining agreements with the industry to stamp out these bad practices and to help small businesses.
A quarter of our energy needs were once met by nuclear power, but that is no longer the case because six of the reactors that closed down under Labour Governments were not replaced. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be fair to say that energy bills are tougher to control because we are now over-reliant on imported fuel sources in order to make sure that our generators are fuelled?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The main reason people’s fuel bills have gone up over the past few years is that there has been a huge increase in wholesale gas prices, which accounts for 60% of the increase in people’s bills. We are becoming more dependent on imports of gas, and that is partly to do with the fact that the previous Government failed to make the essential investments that this country needs.
I know that the Secretary of State will share the whole House’s concern about the number of excess winter deaths last year, and it is revealing that 80% were among the over-75s. On 12 January 2012, Labour tabled a motion calling for the energy companies to put all those over 75 on the cheapest tariff, but sadly the Government opposed it. Given that the evidence clearly shows that the over-75s are least likely to be on the lowest tariff, most likely to live in poorly insulated properties and most vulnerable to the cold weather, will he reconsider and make the energy companies put all those over 75 on the cheapest tariff in time for winter?
Of course the excess winter deaths figures are disturbing. I think that every Member and every party in this House is committed to tackling this, not least because it is a problem that every Government have faced. The solution lies in a combination of policies—health policies, social care policies, housing policies and energy policies. That is why our fuel poverty strategy, which we will publish early in the new year, is a cross-Government attempt to make sure that we are tackling the real problem. I am afraid that once again the right hon. Lady is offering a simplistic solution, and she forgets that this Government have already acted with Ofgem to make sure that everyone is put on the lowest available tariff.
To be very clear, our policy is about putting all those over 75 on to the cheapest tariff regardless of how they pay and regardless of whether they are online, which is one of the factors preventing them from getting the cheapest tariff. The Secretary of State’s policy does not affect 90% of people and will still leave those over 75 who are not online and do not pay by direct debit paying more than other people. I remind him that in his own constituency nearly 8,000 people over 75 would save up to £200 as a result of our policy. For those people, and for 4 million like them around the country, why will he not make the energy companies put them on the cheapest tariff and refocus the ECO budget on those living in fuel poverty?
Because we are doing more for the elderly. This Government brought in the warm home discount, which is taking £135 off the bills of the poorest pensioners. That is real action, taking money directly off their bills. We will certainly take no lectures from the right hon. Lady.
My hon. Friend gives me too much credit, because I am not in charge of VAT. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to what my hon. Friend says, but he sets even the Chancellor a tall order by wanting him to renegotiate the sixth VAT directive.
There has been huge progress in this area. In the Energy Bill, we are building the world’s first ever low-carbon electricity market and have already seen renewable electricity generation double. To date, the UK Green Investment Bank has committed £740 million of public money to projects in a range of green sectors, including waste, offshore wind and energy efficiency, helping to mobilise an additional £1.9 billion of finance from the private sector. From the largest investment in the railways since Victorian times to our leadership on climate change in Europe and the world, our record in this area is a vast improvement on the past.
According to EUROSTAT, we were one of only four countries in the EU 27 whose carbon emissions went up in 2012. They went up by 3.9%. That cannot be right, can it, if this is the greenest Government ever? Is the Secretary of State’s new slogan, “Vote yellow, go blue”?
If the hon. Gentleman looks at our work over this Parliament, he will see that we have been reducing carbon emissions. It is true that last year there was a small increase, because we have been burning more coal than anyone expected. As a result of shale gas, the United States has been exporting its coal. That is why this Government are working so hard to reform the EU emissions trading scheme, to make sure that we send signals so that the same amount of coal is not burned in future.
In order to be able to both maintain the hundreds of thousands of green jobs in this country and to secure hundreds of thousands more, the Government need to reassure the renewables sector and major investors through consistent messaging and certainty. Is my right hon. Friend able to reassure me that such messaging is certain and secure not only in his Department, but across all levels of other Government Departments, including the Prime Minister?
It is interesting that when the Energy Bill received its Third Reading in this House, only eight Members voted against it. All the Front Benchers of all parties bar one—and that party has only one Member—voted for the Bill. I think that sent a sign, not just from the Government, but from this whole House and across the British political system that this country supports investment in renewables.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) talked earlier about good value for green money, but the green deal has been a complete failure. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the enormous amount of money spent on this complex, bureaucratic project that has delivered no results?
A scheme that has already led to 100,000 assessments and a huge number of very good satisfaction ratings from people acting on those surveys is a success. When the Labour party talks down the green deal, let us remember what it is doing: it is talking down reductions in carbon emissions and action on fuel poverty. It should be ashamed.
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of this Government’s many achievements has been to create an economic framework for innovative firms to start developing new ways in technology to improve our green performance so that our green economy is alive and well, generating jobs and producing good results on CO2 reduction?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just my Department that has been involved in investing in research and development and technological innovation, vital though that is in our area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has ensured investment in ultra-low emission vehicles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is investing in the railways in a way that has not happened since the Victorians. We have a very proud record of investment, both in infrastructure and in innovation and technical development.
RenewableUK published a report today on offshore wind. It recognises what the Government have done, but it also warns:
“Industry is facing a hiatus in confidence that the large scale economic rewards associated with sustained high delivery levels will be achieved.”
We have heard warnings about the Atlantic array and there are signs elsewhere that offshore wind might not get the increase in deployment that was hoped for and expected. May I ask the Secretary of State not to be complacent about the issue and recognise the real problem faced by the industry?
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am certainly not complacent, but I am aware of major investments that we believe will go forward, and that will reassure the industry and the supply chain. We already have the world’s largest deployment of offshore wind, and we are already recognised by Ernst and Young as the top place in the world in which to invest in offshore wind. With the Energy Bill going through the House with cross-party support, that gives a real signal to investors in offshore wind.
We published the annual “Statutory Security of Supply” report last month. National Grid is preparing stronger balancing measures for the short term. We plan to run a capacity market auction next year for the medium term. Beyond that, we are incentivising new infrastructure, including new nuclear, through the Energy Bill.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on agreeing terms for the first new nuclear power station since 1995, which is in marked contrast to the previous Government’s failure to replace ageing power stations. Will he tell the House what other steps the Government are taking to find additional sites further to secure and improve UK energy security?
It is very telling that in the year that Hinkley Point will come on stream—2023—eight of the nine existing plants will be off the system, unless their lives are extended, which shows the legacy of under-investment that we have to face. There are now proposals for 12 reactors in total, spread over five different sites.
Since this Government came to office, five new gas plants have come on to the system and another is being built at Manchester, while two large wind farms opened this year and four more are under construction, and we have agreed terms, as we have heard, for the first new nuclear station in a generation. All that investment would be put at risk by the threat of price controls from a future socialist Government.
15. Whether the Government overruled the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on the decision to extend the contract with Nuclear Management Partners to run Sellafield; and if he will publish all the relevant documents. (901320)
The contract review process and the decision to renew were the responsibility of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Given the importance of Sellafield, Ministers were kept fully informed, and we endorsed the decision to extend the contract, which gives Sellafield the opportunity to build on the progress made so far.
I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he publish the documents in relation to this decision? Will he agree to meet me and any other interested MPs to discuss the Government’s relationship with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, given some of the decisions that will be taken over the coming period?
I am always happy to meet any colleagues from the House, and I am certainly happy to meet the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to discuss the performance of the company at Sellafield. I think that she is referring to the KPMG report, which was commissioned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and its use and disclosure—whether or not it should be published—is the responsibility of the authority.
Rural Energy Costs
The Government have worked with industry to co-ordinate the “Buy oil early” campaign, which I launched in September, and to provide guidance on setting up or joining oil-buying groups. We also provide assistance to the most vulnerable consumers via the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments.
Will the Minister bear in mind that those of us who live in the countryside very often live in old houses with solid or rubble-built walls, and very often in areas of water incursion? We cannot benefit from dual fuel tariffs, and we often rely on liquefied petroleum gas or fuel oil, which is cripplingly expensive. May I just remind him that people in rural areas have no ambition to be cold, damp and forgotten?
I assure my hon. Friend that those people have certainly not been forgotten. We have particularly addressed the issue of off-grid customers through publicising the adoption of a code of conduct so that petroleum suppliers treat their customers fairly. Ofgem is considering whether heating oil is properly covered by its consumer protection measures. We are working with the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group to improve the information available on vulnerable customers so that all the different agencies better understand where those customers live.
I thank the Minister for his comments. Is he aware that there are constituencies such as mine that are regarded as urban areas, but that contain substantial rural areas? The people in those rural areas are sometimes overlooked in this regard.
I understand that. My hon. Friend is a great champion of his constituents, whether urban or rural. There are off-grid consumers in suburban and more urban areas. We treat all consumers equally. I encourage him to look at the guide to keeping warm this winter that the Secretary of State has sent to all Members on how we can best promote such matters in our constituency.
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. (901323)
I recently published the annual energy statement, which focuses on security of supply and on competition in energy markets. Since then, I have focused on driving forward our ambitious agenda for more competition. For example, I held a recent round table with industry leaders and consumer groups to consider the practical steps that we need to take to deliver faster and easier switching for consumers. There have been significant new investments in renewable energy and I expect to make further announcements on that shortly.
Finally, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and I recently attended the global climate change talks in Warsaw, where a good agreement was reached that put in place the foundations for the critical talks in Paris in 2015 and established a work programme to prepare for them.
The Secretary of State will be aware that we will shortly lose more than 12 GW of generating capacity at oil and gas-fired power stations due to EU directives. What consideration has he given to placing those power stations in our strategic national energy reserve, in order that we can retain them for when we most need them in the coming years?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. However, power stations that have opted out under the large combustion plant directive must close by the end of 2015. The directive provides no derogation from that requirement. As a safeguard against the risk of low capacity, National Grid has consulted on a new system of balancing services to procure additional capacity in the winters of 2014-15 and 2015-16 if it is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) asked an important question about the impact of the carbon price floor on energy-intensive industries. Those industries are concerned that they are not getting the compensation that the Secretary of States suggests they are getting. May I ask the Secretary of State about the carbon price floor again? Who does he agree with—his deputy, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who said that it was an “absurd” waste of money and “assisted suicide” for British manufacturers, or his Liberal Democrat predecessor Chris Huhne, who said,
“We do not need it to drive decarbonisation… It was a straightforward revenue-raising measure by the Tories”?
The idea that energy-intensive industries are not getting some of the support is not true. Payments under the scheme of compensation for the indirect costs of the EU emissions trading system are being made. It is true that the proposals for compensation for the carbon price floor are still going through the state aid process. However, we have a scheme that will come out and people will get those payments.
T2. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that neither he nor his Department would seek to block the production of any Government report on the impact of energy infrastructure and specifically the planned Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on the correlation between onshore wind and residential property values? (901324)
T3. Does the Secretary of State accept that the recent comments on rolling back green levies have caused serious concerns to companies such as Siemens? Exactly what will he do to ensure that the investment in Hull is not jeopardised by the mixed messages from Government? (901325)
I reassure the hon. Lady that I have made it clear that the review of green levies does not cover renewables obligation certificates, feed-in tariffs or contracts for difference. That should be a great reassurance to Siemens. I hope that she will take that message back to her constituency. I look forward to meeting her and her colleagues shortly to discuss the important investment in Hull by Siemens.
T4. A great deal of information is available to help our constituents save money on their energy bills by switching, fixing or insulating their homes, but it can be a challenge to ensure that the right information reaches those who need it most. Will the Minister commend local business Worcester Bosch for sponsoring a free information pack for my constituents in Worcester? (901326)
I certainly commend not only Worcester Bosch but the work my hon. Friend does in his constituency with the public and the fuel-poor, and particularly in getting that information to them. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Members of the House and asked them to share with their constituents a guide developed by our Department, in conjunction with charities such as Age UK and National Energy Action, which explains how householders can cut their energy bills and where they can go for help this winter. There is help on offer.
T7. This morning it has been reported that in looking at the costs of energy, the Government are considering changing the cost of transmission. Will they take the opportunity finally to get rid of the discriminatory locational system for transmission and distribution costs that raises prices in the north of Scotland? (901330)
National Grid has been looking at the balance in cost between north and south, but a lot of energy is generated in Scotland, not least in renewables, and Scotland has an interest in ensuring that that energy is transmitted to England.
I commend my hon. Friend; he is clearly one of the biggest switchers in town—but I think we always knew that. I would encourage everyone to follow his example, check their bills, and see whether they can move to a better deal. That is why we are giving statutory backing in the Energy Bill to Ofgem’s retail market reforms which will make it easier for all consumers to follow my hon. Friend’s example, compare tariffs, and get a much better deal.
T8. The number of excess winter deaths more than doubled in Ayrshire and Arran last year. Earlier the Minister referred to influenza, but my constituents are increasingly coming to tell me that they have to choose between eating and heating, particularly those in receipt of benefit cuts, sanctions and other difficult financial circumstances. Does the Minister accept that the cost of energy is a major factor in people turning off their heating and in that increase in deaths? (901331)
We absolutely get the importance of ensuring that people are able to afford the energy they need. Nobody should have to make a choice between heating and eating, and anybody concerned about that should call the energy saving advice service on 0300 123 1234. As we are so concerned about the cost of energy, the Government are determined to do their part to ensure that bills are kept as low as possible. That is why we are looking at the regressive levies that Labour put on energy bills.
T6. Nine out of 10 consumers agree they could get a better deal on their gas and electricity supply if switching could be speeded up, and a third of people would be more likely to change providers if the process were quicker and simpler. What is the Minister doing to force energy companies to reduce the time it takes to switch providers, and when can my constituents in Cannock Chase expect to see the new rules in place? (901329)
My hon. Friend will know that in the annual energy statement I challenged the industry to come forward with proposals on how the process could be speeded up without compromising quality of services or consumer rights, or putting up consumer bills. The industry has started to put forward proposals. I met industry representatives early in November and was encouraged by the discussion, and I hope to make some announcements in the new year.
Coal generates up to 50% of electricity in the UK, but sadly most of that coal is imported—there has been a 37% increase in the past year. What are the Government prepared to do to secure the future of the British deep-mining coal industry?
My Department played a role in ensuring that UK Coal Operations survived this year, following the serious fire at the Daw Mill colliery, and helped preserve 2,000 jobs at Killingworth and Thoresby. We continue to work with the UK Coal Forum and other bodies to ensure that the place of coal is properly recognised in our energy mix.
At 9 o’clock this morning, npower announced that 1,460 jobs are to be outsourced to India, and in addition that there will be 550 job losses in Stoke-on-Trent. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is the last straw, given the totally irresponsible behaviour of the energy companies? What will he and his colleagues consider doing in order to provide jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, which the Government have so far failed to do? We do not have a local enterprise zone. We need a joined-up approach from this Government.
The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter. The announcement is obviously very worrying for all the people involved, not just in her constituency, but in other parts of the country. We will work across the Government to see what we can do to help the people affected.
Following the publication of the Atkins report, will the Secretary of State publish a plan to implement its recommendations? The local enterprise partnership and I would like the deep geothermal demonstrator site in Cornwall to be expedited.
The hon. Lady knows that we are considering the Atkins report and that we must make choices on which renewable electricity supplies we can back. I hope she will be pleased that, through the renewable heat incentive, we are supporting geothermal heat, which will be a big boost for the industry. That might not be as welcome to her constituents in the case she raises, but we want to back geothermal heat.
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), 560 workers at the npower call centre in Thornaby, where many of my constituents work, will be affected by npower’s announcement to remove 1,400 jobs from the UK and send them to India—that is what it has informed the public. What communications have the Secretary of State and the Department had with npower since April? The Government will be aware that its review of call centres has been going on since then.
We have not had specific discussions on the proposal announced today, so I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any background detail. However, as I have told the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), we will work across the Government, particularly with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to do what we can to help the people affected by the announcement.
Work starts this week on the installation of nine super-efficient General Electric wind turbines at the Burton Wold wind farm extension, which will generate 14 MW of green electricity and power 11,000 homes. Will the Secretary of State congratulate First Renewable on its £45 million investment in the Kettering economy?
History was made at the UN climate talks last week—not, unfortunately, by an unprecedented breakthrough in negotiations, but by the unprecedented walk-out by 800 civil society groups and trade unions. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of their concerns that the talks are being unduly influenced by the fossil fuel industry? Does he agree that, if that is the case, it is unfortunate, because it does not give the talks a fighting chance of delivering what science and equity demand?
I met the NGOs before they walked out. I explained the progress we were making in the talks, and after they walked out, we made further progress. No one expected the Warsaw climate change talks to be a breakthrough. They were an important building block— a foundation—for Lima next year and for Paris and the critical talks in 2015. I have laid a written statement on the Warsaw talks.
Parish councillors near Melksham in my constituency are looking forward to the community dividend on offer from developers who propose new solar power farms in the area. When will we have more clarity on such arrangements and when will the Government publish their community energy strategy?
My hon. Friend will not have long to wait before we publish the community energy strategy. This Government are gripping the potential of community strategy. No previous Government have recognised the potential of communities to take control of energy. Thanks to innovation and new technologies, and the financial support we are putting in place, community energy has an exciting future, solar included.
Distribution and grid transmission costs account for between 20% and 25% of energy bills. Areas such as mine, which produce an awful lot of electricity, pay even more for their electricity. When will the Government review the transmission system so that we can have a level playing field across the country and National Grid can act in the national interest?
Ofgem and National Grid have been looking at transmission costs between north, south and different parts of the country. They are looking specifically at the distribution costs of local distribution operators to ensure that they are kept as low as is reasonably possible.
What does the Secretary of State say to my constituents in the rural part of Wellingborough who duly elect councillors, but when planning applications for wind farms come forward, councillors and my constituents are against those plans yet they are overturned by a planning inspector? My constituents think that democracy is not working.
We understand people’s concerns not just about onshore wind but about other forms of energy production, such as shale and so on. We need to ensure that the planning system is responsive. The hon. Gentleman knows that what he has said could be applied to many other developments outside energy. It is often the case that the unpopular development of housing or a supermarket gets overturned by the Planning Inspectorate.
The Secretary of State admitted, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), that due to Government incompetence no money has been paid to energy-intensive industries in mitigation for the carbon floor tax. However, he did say that money is being spent on the European Union emissions trading scheme. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) told me:
“£16 million has been paid to 17 companies.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 142W.]
When I asked him to name those companies, he wrote:
“We are still assessing applications.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 663W.]
How can money have been paid out when applications are still being assessed?
More than 60 applications have been received and we have paid out on more than 20 of them. We have done that in the past few weeks. We are processing the others as quickly as possible. The scheme that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to was the carbon price floor compensation scheme, for which we are still awaiting approval under state aid rules from Brussels.
I know the Secretary of State will want to commend the work of the Somerset Community Foundation. Under its “Surviving Winter” appeal, people can redistribute their winter fuel allowance, if they do not need some or all of it, to those who need money to heat their homes. Will the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State have further discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that notice of that is included in the letter that goes out to everybody?
In accordance with the notice I gave the House yesterday afternoon, this morning I made a written statement announcing that Sir Cyril Chantler will carry out an independent review of the evidence on the impact of standardised tobacco packaging on public health.
Tobacco use, especially among children, remains one of our most significant public health challenges. Each year in England more than 300,000 children under the age of 16 try smoking for the first time. Most adults who smoke started before they were 18 years of age. As a result, we must do all we can to stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place, if we are to reduce smoking rates.
We have listened to the strong views expressed on both sides of the House, including when we debated standardised packaging in a Back-Bench business debate earlier this month, to which I responded. Many Members then told me that the evidence base for standardised packaging continued to grow and urged the Government to take action. Similarly strong views have been expressed in the other place. As a result, I believe the time is right to seek an independent view on whether the introduction of standardised packaging would be likely to have an effect on public health. In particular, I want to know the likely impact on young people.
I have asked Sir Cyril to undertake a focused review, reporting in March next year. It will be entirely independent, with an independent secretariat, and he is free to draw evidence from whatever sources he considers necessary and appropriate. It will be up to him to determine how he undertakes the review, and he will set that out in more detail in due course. As the House will know, Sir Cyril has confirmed that he has no links with the tobacco industry. The review is not a public consultation. The Government ran a full public consultation in 2012 and the responses will be available in full for the review. To maximise transparency, the Department will also publish the substantive responses received as soon as possible.
The Government will also take advantage of the opportunity offered in another place by tabling an amendment to the Children and Families Bill to provide for a regulation-making power. If, on receiving Sir Cyril’s review, the Government decide to proceed, that will allow standardised tobacco packaging to be introduced without delay. The Government have been consistent in their desire to take an evidence-based approach to public health, and we will introduce standardised tobacco packaging if, following the review and consideration of the wider issues raised, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed.
We have seen plenty of U-turns over the past three years, but only a Government as shambolic as this one could U-turn on a U-turn. It is not so much that they have lost their way on public health—they are running around in circles.
Will the Minister answer a straight question: does she support standardised packaging for cigarettes—yes or no? In the week running up to this being debated in the other place, does she honestly expect us to believe that this has nothing to do with the fact that the Government are on the brink of a humiliating defeat?
The Minister says that we need another review, but the Government have already had a review and the evidence is clear for all to see. Did that not already find that standardised packaging made cigarettes less attractive to young people and health warnings more effective, and did it not refute the utter falsehood that some brands are safer than others? All the royal colleges and health experts are united behind the case for standardised packaging—I commend everyone who has campaigned for this measure—but is it not the case that if the lobbying Bill goes through in its current form, it will prevent charities such as Cancer Research UK from ever raising such issues in an election year?
Is not the Prime Minister more interested in listening to Lynton Crosby and the vested interests of big tobacco than cancer charities and health experts? What further evidence does the Minister need? What do Ministers know now that they did not already know when they U-turned on this before the summer recess? Why are the Government delaying this still further? Some 79,230 children will have taken up smoking in the 139 days since the Government U-turned on standardised packaging in July, and about 70,000 more will have had their first cigarette by the time the review reports next March. We should be legislating now, not delaying.
I thought that was a rather disappointing and naive response. This is a complex area of public health policy, and it is important to follow a clear process and to follow the evidence. The hon. Lady might not believe me, but perhaps she will believe the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who in November 2009, when he was Health Secretary, wrote:
“we would need…convincing evidence showing the health benefits of this policy before it would be acceptable”.
We have got that evidence.
The Government have held a consultation, but we have not had a review before. We said in July that we would pause to consider the emerging evidence base, and that is exactly what we have done. I am happy to account for my actions, but it appears that I am being asked to account for the cynicism of the Opposition, too. This weekend sees the anniversary of the passing of the legislation in Australia, and new evidence is emerging rapidly, as was pointed out in the very good Back-Bench business debate to which I responded earlier this month, as well as in the other place, so this is the right time to do this.
Of course we have listened to what Members of the other place have said. They rightly take extremely seriously such an important public health issue as stopping children from smoking, but we have to proceed in a measured, step-by-step way to ensure that, if and when a decision is made, it will be robust and will deal with all the inevitable challenges that might come its way.
Order. We are dealing with an extremely important matter, which I judge as urgent, but we have business questions and two ministerial statements to follow, so the model is what might be called “the Gibraltar model” of Mr Nigel Evans, whereby a good exchange was had, but it was a brief one. I will not be able to accommodate everybody who wants to speak.
Idiotic, nanny state proposals such as the plain packaging of tobacco are what we expect from the Labour party. What we expect from Conservative Ministers is for them to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, and to stand up to the health zealots and nanny state brigade who, if they could, would ban everything and have everything in plain packaging. Will the Minister commit to sticking to those Conservative principles and to ignoring the nanny state brigade of Labour Members?
I know my hon. Friend feels strongly about this issue, but nobody is banning anything. Were the Government to proceed following receipt of the review, the proposal would be about packaging, not the ability to purchase tobacco. All the sorts of points that my hon. Friend has often articulated were well made during the consultation, which, as he knows, received an enormous response, and all the responses will be made available to Sir Cyril.
Some 190 health organisations recognise that plain packaging will cut smoking, particularly among the young, and have urged action. Is this not just a further delay while the Government get their house in order so that they know how and when to introduce the legislation that is so urgently needed?
The hon. Lady is right to say that many charities feel strongly about this issue and I was pleased that the chief executive for Action on Smoking and Health said this morning:
“This decision is a victory for public health, for common sense and for future generations”.
Smoking is a childhood addiction, not an adult choice. The announcement is welcome, in that it moves us in the right direction, but if the review should recommend what is, in my judgment, a much-needed change when it is published in March, just how quickly would the Government be able to bring in the necessary regulations?
My right hon. Friend is right that we would need to be able to act quickly if, following the recommendation, we decided to proceed. The power to make regulations is being proposed in the other place exactly so that we may move quickly at the point we receive Sir Cyril’s review. I have looked at the draft schedule, and if the Government were minded to go forward with this policy, I see no reason why it could not be put through before the end of this Parliament.
As chair of the all-party group on heart disease, I pay tribute to the work of the British Heart Foundation, Cancer UK, ASH and other campaigning organisations that have helped to bring about this U-turn. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) specifically mentioned the impact on such charities if the lobbying Bill goes through—they will be neutered and silenced in the run-up to the general election. What lessons should be learned from this?
I, for one, very much congratulate the Minister on this welcome news. As she well knows, the all-party group on cancer has been one of many that have argued for added urgency on this issue. The Government have listened and responded, which is a sign of strength, not weakness. To follow up a previous question, will the Minister give an assurance that the regulations will be in place before the end of this Parliament, because if the recommendations are in favour of introducing standardised packaging, they will need to be implemented quickly?
The Minister said that she had not held a review, but had carried out a consultation. Is that not just a pathetic excuse for inaction, and does she not accept that for every day she delays this policy, another 570 children start smoking?
I congratulate the Minister on listening to the arguments and acting far more quickly than any Opposition Member did in 13 years. Will she assure us that the House will have the opportunity to vote in favour of standardised packaging so that we can demonstrate our cross-party support for this much-needed health measure?
I, too, welcome the Government’s U-turn. I am sure that the Minister has been following attentively the progress made on this issue by the Scottish National party Government, who have been able to make that progress because Lynton Crosby’s remit does not extend north of the border. Will she commend the SNP Government for taking the lead and work closely with Scottish Ministers to secure the best possible outcome for everyone on these islands?
My hon. Friend is right to remind us all that, even if the Government decide to implement the policy at the end of the review, there will still be many other things to be done in relation to this important issue. Major public health campaigns will proceed as they have been doing under Governments of all colours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) pointed out that 190 health organisations were in favour of standardised packaging. While I appreciate that there may be tensions within the Government, the hon. Lady is Minister for public health. Will she tell us whether any health organisation is opposed to plain packaging?
We have asked Sir Cyril to conduct an independent review and to weigh all the different evidence. I do not wish to seem to pre-empt the review, because it is important that it is independent, but I will say that I am not aware of any health organisations that are not in favour of plain packaging. Indeed, as the hon. Lady can imagine, such organisations have expressed the opposite view to me with considerable strength.
Will the Minister remind the House of all the investment that the Government have already made in anti-smoking strategies so that no one smokes out of ignorance? Does she agree that the main responsibility for children’s smoking habits lies with their parents?
Of course we want parents to set a good example to their children and to try to prevent them from starting to smoke. The important public health measures to which my hon. Friend has referred are proceeding but, sadly, a great many children start smoking at a very young age.
This is just a cynical ploy to get beyond the humiliating defeat that the Government face in the House of Lords. Notwithstanding what has been said by the Minister’s hon. Friends, no decision has been made to introduce plain packaging. Who does she think will win this war of attrition for the ear of the Prime Minister: Lynton Crosby, or both Houses of Parliament?
One of the reasons we asked a distinguished paediatrician to conduct the review, rather than someone from a public health background, was that he would be able to bring a fresh mind to it. Sir Cyril will set his own terms, which he will announce in the next few weeks.
Does the Minister appreciate that one of the reasons for the scepticism among Opposition Members is that in the summer last year, either there was a U-turn or the policy was still under review. Why was an independent review not requested then? If that had happened, it would have been completed by now, and we could have gone ahead.
As Members on both sides of the House reminded me forcefully during the Back-Bench debate earlier this month, new evidence has recently emerged, and we are also coming up to the anniversary of the legislation being passed in Australia, so this is the right time to do this.
Will the Minister reassure me that this will not be the thin end of the wedge, and that the Government will not look for evidence to support the contention that selling children sweets in brightly coloured packets contributes to childhood obesity and, as a result, seek to ban such packaging?
That is a slightly different topic. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about these issues, and he will know that, through the Government’s responsibility deal, we are working in voluntary partnership with business to make good progress on public health issues relating to obesity.
We are not persuaded that legislation is the right way forward on that matter. There is still a lot of room for education, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to believe, as I do, that when parents are made aware of the dangers of smoking in cars when children are present, they will wish to desist from doing so.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. In September, I visited the Cancer Research UK centre in Southampton to meet my constituent, Tim Underwood, who leads the oesophageal cancer team there. I suspect that the team will be pleased to hear today’s announcement. Will she assure us that, whatever happens at the end of this process, it will remain the Government’s intention resolutely to prevent young people from picking up this habit that kills in the first place?
Preventing children from smoking is a major priority for the Department of Health and for the Government, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that, irrespective of this piece of policy—important though it has the potential to be—the Government are committed to spending significant amounts on public health campaigns and all the other mechanisms available to us to prevent children from smoking.
The Minister keeps mentioning the evidence, but the evidence from Australia is overwhelmingly in favour of plain packaging for cigarettes, so why on earth is she waiting? She should bring in plain packaging now to save children from taking up smoking in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the evidence, as have other Members. That is exactly why we have asked someone who, with all due respect, is far more expert than he is or I am to look at the evidence and report to the Government swiftly. That will be a productive way forward. It will ensure that, however the Government decide to proceed, we do so in a way that is robust.
Does my hon. Friend agree with the EU majority decision that e-cigarettes should not come under the same regulations as medicines? Does she agree that they should be subject to the same marketing controls as cigarettes, whether that involves plain packaging or not?
Far from doing nothing in 13 years, the Labour Government legislated to ban smoking in public places. We said that we would need convincing evidence on plain packaging, and this Government’s own consultation has now provided that convincing evidence. What further evidence does the Minister think the review will uncover?
As I have said, I am not going to pre-empt the findings of the independent review, and I am sure that Members understand why it is important not to do so. It will be good to have a review of the evidence, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my confidence that the review will be extremely worth while and useful.
I confess that I enjoyed a Henri Wintermans Café Crème after breakfast this morning on the way to work. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many lawful smokers who want to be sure what they are buying? Has she made any assessment of the effect that plain packaging could have on the black market by making it easier to smuggle counterfeit cigarettes?
That point came up during the consultation. To be clear, the review that we have asked Sir Cyril to undertake will cover the public health aspects of the policy. It will then be for Ministers to decide how to take forward the findings of the review and to make policy. The points that my hon. Friend and others have made will be borne in mind at that time.
I sometimes feel sorry for the Government. We have an excellent Minister at the Dispatch Box who is listening to Parliament and asking for an independent report, yet she gets Members of Parliament complaining about that. That is ridiculous. I think I understood her to say that if regulation is to be introduced, it will be done by statutory instrument. I hope that the Government are not going to proceed in that way, because we can only reject or approve a statutory instrument—we cannot amend it. Will she think again on that point?
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. The exact technicalities are still under review. As I said, we are strongly minded to use the affirmative procedure, but that matter is not completely resolved. Of course, we do have a little time, because we expect the review to report in March 2014.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue. He may or may not know that when I responded to a recent Adjournment debate that was secured by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), we discussed that point, and I invited trading standards officers to submit evidence on the enforceability of just those sorts of measures. I will be interested to hear from Members and others about how they think those might work.
Business of the House
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 2 December—Second Reading of the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on motions relating to Backbench Business (Amendment of Standing Orders) and Select Committee statements.
Tuesday 3 December—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on “Cyber Bullying”, followed by a debate entitled “Persecution of Christians in the 21st Century”. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party.
Wednesday 4 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, followed by Opposition day [unallotted half day]. There will be a debate on business rates. The debate will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Thursday 5 December—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his autumn statement, which will be followed by a general debate on modern-day slavery. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 December will include:
Monday 9 December—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 10 December—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
Wednesday 11 December—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
Thursday 12 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I also take the opportunity to congratulate colleagues who have participated in Movember this month? I applaud their efforts and labours for an important cause, although I must admit that I find some of them a bit disconcerting. Some of them even remind me that this Government are trying to take us back to Victorian times.
Yesterday, the Government proposed some very sensible measures to toughen rules for European Union migrants, including banning out-of-work benefits and quadrupling fines for bosses not paying the minimum wage. Given that Labour proposed some of these changes eight months ago, will the Leader of the House tell us why it has taken the Government so long to announce any action? Will he confirm that none of the Government’s proposed changes will be in place by 1 January, when work restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians will end? Much of the Government’s plan could be implemented using secondary legislation. Given that we have 13 days of parliamentary time remaining before the Christmas recess, it is clear that we could work together to get some of these sensible changes in place. So will he agree to work with us to get this done in time?
Despite stuffing the other place with 158 new coalition peers since the election, on Tuesday the Government lost yet another key vote on the licensing of bankers. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will now accept that important amendment and keep it in the Bill? The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill has provided yet another lesson in how not to legislate. After ignoring our request to delay the Bill until after the publication of the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the Government presented this place with a shell of a Bill, which has now grown fivefold in the other place. That makes it a very different piece of legislation from the one that we scrutinised in this place, and it is a disgrace that the Government have developed a Bill of such importance in the unelected Chamber while treating this place with contempt. Will the Leader of the House give his assurance that when the Bill returns, we will have more than sufficient time to debate properly the vast amounts of it that are new?
In a week of spectacular U-turns, perhaps the Chancellor’s damascene conversion on payday loans was the most surprising. After all, the Government had voted three times against a cap. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it was the prospect of yet another defeat on the banking Bill that changed the Chancellor’s mind? It seems that the Chancellor is developing a proclivity for ideological flexibility. Perhaps it is just a public relations strategy to say one thing and then do another. After all, he said he would stop tax evasion but he refused to close the giant eurobond loophole. He attacked unacceptable City bonuses and then went to Brussels to fight for them. He promised to cut borrowing, but he has borrowed more in three years than Labour did in 13. He said that we are all in it together, but prices have risen faster than wages in 40 of the 41 months since he has been Chancellor. Will the Leader of the House now give us a debate in Government time on the widening gap between this Government’s rhetoric and the reality?
We are all eagerly awaiting next Thursday when two parliamentary Titans can tussle over the key issues of the day—and that is just the business statement. I know that colleagues will be keen to ensure that they are in the Chamber to hear the unfailingly witty ripostes of the Leader of the House. Will he confirm which will come first next Thursday, the autumn statement or the business statement?
This week has revealed that we have a Chancellor who thinks it is Marxist to intervene in energy prices, but positively Thatcherite to intervene in the payday lending market. We have a sports Minister who appears to know nothing about sport, and a Health Minister who did not know how to access a walk-in centre.
It is no wonder that coalition tensions have been rising, and that is only in the Tory party. Apparently 25 Conservative modernisers have been to visit the Prime Minister to warn him of a split if he abandons green levies. The Leader of the House must be wondering where it all went wrong for the Prime Minister and his modernisation project. The Prime Minister promised a big society and delivered the politics of division and fear, and now his self-styled successor, the Mayor of London, thinks greed is good and that some people are too stupid to be equal.
Today’s news that the Prime Minister is U-turning on his U-turn on plain packaging for cigarettes says it all. He is a Prime Minister running round and round in circles.
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response, and I join her in congratulating Members who have been participants in Movember. We shall, in some cases, regret the passing of their facial adornments. I suspect that not many of them will be persuaded to keep them on a permanent basis, but it is all in an important cause. I am sure that, across the House, we feel very strongly about the importance of supporting them in their endeavours to promote research into prostate and testicular cancers. We have made considerable progress, but there is much more to be done. I know that prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting men and if we can secure investment in research and treatment such as that characterised by successful breast cancer campaigns, men—and, I suspect, women—in this country and beyond will attach considerable importance to that.
The hon. Lady asked about migration and I heard the Home Secretary answer her questions yesterday in the course of a rather comprehensive statement of what the Government are doing. Considering that that statement was the answer to an urgent question asked by the shadow Home Secretary, it turned out to be an own goal. The Home Secretary made it very clear that we will put a bar on migrants claiming out-of-work benefits for the first three months, stop welfare payments after six months unless a claimant has a genuine chance of a job, stop migrant jobseekers claiming housing benefit to subsidise accommodation costs, and introduce further measures on the minimum wage. She also made clear—I heard her do it—those measures which would be in place by January.
The shadow Leader of the House asked for a debate on banking reform. I announced that the House would consider Lords amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. We did not send a shell of a Bill to the other place—far from it. It was an important measure that ring-fenced everyday banking from investment banking, ensuring that banks are never again too big to fail. It reformed the failed tripartite system that we inherited from the Opposition. It is staggering that they are now trying to engage in procedural politics on the Bill. We, as a Government, are having to put in place a banking regulatory system that will not allow the appalling mess we inherited from the previous Government to occur again as that failed this country and beyond in a major way.
We quite rightly established the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the Bill responded directly to it. We gave the commission an opportunity to consider the measures in the Bill as part of the scrutiny of it before its introduction and the commission produced a second report. It was never in anybody’s interest for the Bill not to be completed during this Session and so we used a mechanism whereby the second report was reflected in measures incorporated into the Bill in the House of Lords. That is perfectly reasonable and as the hon. Lady and the House will have gathered, we anticipate a full day’s debate on Lords amendments when the Bill returns to the House.
The hon. Lady also asked for a debate on the rhetoric and reality of the Chancellor’s policies. I would welcome such a debate as it would give us an opportunity to contrast not just rhetoric and reality but the rhetoric of the Labour party and the reality of Labour in office. Yesterday, Labour tried to talk about the economic policy of this Government but throughout the debate Labour Members failed to recognise or acknowledge the mistakes their party had made. The facts are simple and straightforward; for example, under a Labour Government there was a 7.2% reduction in the GDP of this country during the deepest recession we have seen in the past 100 years, which led to unprecedented deficits in this country. That was the consequence of a Labour Government. As for the rhetoric and reality of the Chancellor’s policies, I look forward to hearing him make the autumn statement next Thursday and set out how this coalition Government are making tremendous progress—not least by assisting people in this country through more jobs, reduced taxation, controls on fuel duties, a council tax freeze available to councils through the whole of this Parliament, and the largest increases in the state pension we have ever seen—in helping families with the cost of living, which the Opposition would signally have been unable to do had they continued to borrow and spend in the way that they did in the past. It has always been the same old Labour: spend, borrow and see the economy of this country collapse.