Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

On 28 November, I asked the Minister how many planning applications for onshore wind had been lodged in England since the alleged loosening of planning restrictions on onshore wind in September. The answer then was zero. Even now that the policy has had more time to bed down, the answer, I am afraid, is still zero, and I predict that it will be zero the next time we meet. In September last year, the Secretary of State said that the changes made in September

“will help speed up the delivery of onshore wind projects”.

Does the Minister think that the Government have succeeded?

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Eleanor Laing

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesman.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

That was a disappointing and specious defence by the Minister of his intention not to proceed with these proposals from the other place. He knows perfectly well what the barriers to developing community energy are; we have debated them at length during the passage of the Bill. So I am not sure it is going to take a forensic panel of inquiry to find out what those details are before the Government can act on any of these things.

We are on the last lap of the Energy Bill and it is particularly disappointing that we are hearing what we are hearing today about this Lords amendment. The Bill, which has been with us in both Houses for well over a year now, puts into place many of the essential tools that will enable energy to progress towards a low-carbon, net zero future. The Opposition have consistently supported the Bill, while endeavouring during its passage to strengthen it in its low carbon mission. We have tried to place into the Bill further elements to make it the best it can be in pursuit of its low-carbon mission, and there have been some junctures during its passage when the Minister has endeavoured to take on board those suggestions for strengthening it, in some instances by drafting a Government amendment that meets the purport of our amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for those changes to the Bill and for the collegiate way in which the Bill has been debated and decided upon.

However, there are exceptions to that, one of which is in front of us today. As the Minister states, it relates to community and local energy, which I am sure Members will agree is and will be an important part of the future low carbon energy landscape. It has the potential to make a serious contribution to our local carbon arsenal of plant, while being funded and supported by the community in which that plant is situated, making it easier to develop and able to restore the benefits of its operation to the community itself.

Labour has committed to providing strong support for community energy, including the assistance of Great British Energy, the company we propose to set up to support the development of local low carbon plant with community energy schemes. The potential for such schemes to contribute to the overall installation of low carbon systems in the UK is immense, with perhaps 8 GW of install capacity added to the national stock through such local schemes. I remind the House that that is getting on towards the equivalent capacity of three nuclear power stations such as Hinkley Point C.

Point of Order

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during the urgent question on Bulb going into special administration, the Business Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), after refusing to answer a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the shadow Business Secretary:

“There is no Government bail-out”.—[Official Report, 24 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 358.]

Yet we learned from a court hearing on the same day, and indeed on the front page of The Daily Telegraph and other papers today, that the taxpayer is on the hook for as much as £1.7 billion as a result of this Government’s failure to properly regulate the energy market.

I ask for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right and proper for a Minister to say one thing to this House and another thing to the courts? Do you have any guidance on how the Business Secretary can be brought back to this House to explain why he has misled it in his answers to yesterday’s urgent question. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Although I am not listening to sedentary comments, I do not need to be reminded. I hope the hon. Gentleman will come back to the Dispatch Box and find other words for his last sentence. I am quite sure that no right hon. Member of this House could have misled it.

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you for your guidance on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course I withdraw the question of misleading the House. I hope the Business Secretary will come to the House in due course to explain his comments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is a perfectly polite and in-order question. However, it is not a point of order for the Chair, as I think he knows. Ministers are, of course, responsible for the content of their speeches and answers at the Dispatch Box, and the Chair has no control over such matters. If, however, he wishes to take the matter further and require the Secretary of State to come back to the House to revisit the matter on which he is in disagreement, I suggest that he visits the Clerks in the Table Office for advice on how he might go about that. I am also sure the Treasury Bench will have heard—

Exiting the European Union (Energy Conservation)

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member quite rightly corrects me; it is substantially shorter than I thought.

The provisions appear to be consistent with what was there before and what is there for the future, but that does not cover all the issues, important though it is that we get that right. It was not just a question of checking that the original SI had done the job of making the transition safely into UK law. There was a period during which we were effectively bound to EU law, and a number of changes took place that were to be implemented during that period between the passing of the first SI and this SI being introduced. This SI therefore had to do a number of additional things, to incorporate those changes into UK law for future purposes.

In so doing, a number of issues have arisen, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol comes into question as far as those changes are concerned, as well as how Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be incorporated into the changes for exit on 1 January. The two things that have happened in the intervening period seem to throw up some difficulties, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on them.

The first is that the question of the status of the regulations has arisen as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, because Northern Ireland will now continue to be in the EU regulatory system for the purposes of the two directives and will continue to eco-label on EU badging. That appears to present a problem for the marketing of Northern Ireland-manufactured products in Great Britain. In the SI, those products have effectively been given leave to market in GB on EU labelling and efficiency bases, but with a clear marking of their origin, which is tracked into GB.

That issue may well have been resolved by this SI, but there also arises a problem the other way round. If goods are being marketed from Northern Ireland with EU eco-labelling on it and are subject to ecodesign regulations, it is important that those labels and the ecodesign standards are compatible within the UK. The UK Government have effectively provided an internal solution to that problem by ensuring that the new regulations on UK eco-labelling apply only to GB and not to Northern Ireland, and what comes in from Northern Ireland can be marketed in Great Britain without further additional labelling.

However, what about the marketing of Great Britain-manufactured and labelled goods into Northern Ireland? The SI mentions a possible solution to this, which I would like the Minister to comment on. It has been agreed that there should be a mark on the GB certification to allow those goods to be sold in Northern Ireland. I am not clear what that mark is, how it will be distinguished for the purpose of selling in Northern Ireland and how it will differentiate goods that are being sold from the EU in Northern Ireland, as opposed to being sold from Britain. That is particularly important because of goods from the Irish Republic.

As for the marketing of UK-manufactured goods in the EU, I expect that the UK will have to produce separate agreements on conforming to EU standards to market, and that the existence of a UK mark will not be sufficient to secure marketing arrangements. Can the Minister clarify that position and say whether the eco-labelling UK label will be sufficient for goods that are manufactured in the UK, but marketed in the EU, if those arrangements are in parallel? Would that be acceptable for marketing purposes, or will UK companies have to agree on an additional EU label, over and above the UK label, to secure those marketing opportunities? That is the first additional problem with which we must get to grips.

In addition, some of the changes in the directives issued between March and January are not due to be implemented until 2021. Although those measures should have passed into UK law between March and January, the UK Government opted not to include them in this SI, because they are not due to be implemented before we have left the EU. We may ask whether that is of any significance. Indeed, there is a question mark in my mind about whether or not it is significant, because one change that was made in the regulations prior to this period, and which therefore should have been implemented but will not come in until 2021, relates to lighting standards. It looks as if those who manufacture lighting products in Northern Ireland will have to apply further changes in lighting standards and eco-labelling in 2021, which will set Northern Ireland at odds with GB standards. As far as the UK is concerned, in Great Britain that element of EU law will not yet have been passed on at all, and it may or may not be in the future.

What plans does the Minister have subsequently to incorporate those changes into UK law, so that those standards will be the same? He will agree that this is not an academic point. There could be divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain on those standards, and that might take us further away from the simple question of putting on a mark, or providing a way leave.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I assumed he was aware—although he might not be—that in a motion such as this, which has a 90-minute limit, even though there is currently no pressure from other Members who wish to speak on this specific item of business, it is unusual for the Minister or shadow Minister to take more than 15 minutes to make their point. The hon. Gentleman has taken significantly more than 15 minutes so far, and although he would be right to argue that plenty of that 90-minute slot is left, on behalf of Members who are waiting elsewhere to speak in the next and subsequent items of business, I should point out that there is a lot more business for the House to get through today. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would consider truncating his remarks.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my defence, this is a particularly complicated statutory instrument and I have felt it necessary to try to lay it out in some detail to get to the heart of what we are trying to talk about. If I have taken rather longer than I might have done in that process, I am sorry, but I hope that I will be coming to the end of my remarks shortly.

Will the Minister set out what will be done about the lighting changes that have taken place in directives and how that can be reconciled with procedures in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? There is also no agreement yet, as I understand it, on access by Northern Ireland to the EU product database, which informs eco labelling and product standard activity. The UK is not supposed to have access to the database because it will be independent of the EU and will need to set up its own database in due course—or rather quickly I would have thought. However, if Northern Ireland is to continue to work on EU eco labelling criteria, it should have access to that database. Will the Minister tell us what is happening now about this apparent impasse?

You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we will not oppose this statutory instrument this afternoon, but I do hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on some of the points that I have raised. I think that, at the end of this, he might perhaps agree with me that this is rather a mess, isn’t it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw attention to my having asked the Minister to give way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I think the Minister has concluded, so the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity has, I am afraid, passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

Climate Change

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Eleanor Laing

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

That is one of many things we will have to do in the very near future as we address how properly to sort out the new target. As I will come on to say, there is a big list of challenging things we need to do, and that is just one of them. There are many, many new policy guidelines that we need to get into place to get us to that target.

The Committee on Climate Change, established under the Act as the guardian of science in our proceedings on climate change in the UK, reported strongly, as has been outlined, that we need to move to net zero and that we could do it by 2050, within the cost parameters established in the original target, if we put in place the very challenging policies it outlined. We strongly support that small change that means so much.

As the Minister will know, however, that is not the end of the matter. In fact, it is barely the beginning. I therefore want to ask the Minister for some points of clarification and some further information when he comes to respond to this short debate. There are, essentially, four points to consider.

First, the Minister will know all about the carbon budgets, which were admirably and clearly established under the Climate Change Act. They are designed to keep us on track for a steady reduction in emissions and to put in place measures to keep emissions decline on track. It set out three budgets from the 2008 start date, established in total size by the Committee on Climate Change, and required a Government plan to be put into place on how to meet each budget. The Minister will know that while we have done well by international standards in reducing our emissions by 47%—it is much less in consumption emissions, if we look at it that way—that is not a sufficient trajectory for net zero carbon targets. Our current performance, and likely achievements on known policies right now, place us in a disadvantageous position as we seek to adhere to the budgets that will drive emissions down to net zero by 2050.

The carbon budgets are designed—all five of them, to date—to put us on a path for an 80% reduction and 2°, not net zero 1.5°. It is shocking that we are currently failing to get to grips with the later budgets, budgets four and five, even under the circumstances of 2°. We have exceeded our earlier budgets only partially because of policy and partially because of economic circumstances, meeting or exceeding the first two budgets and probably the third.

After that, however, it gets very sketchy. Indeed, the latest updated emissions projections from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show us badly off target: over by 139 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for the fourth carbon budget, or 7% over on central estimates; and 245 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 13% over the central estimate for the fifth carbon budget. This is at a time when we will need to introduce a radically reduced sixth carbon budget, and subsequent budgets, to meet our new challenges. We are failing even to get to grips with the old targets, which will make our work so much harder when the later budgets come upon us.

What urgent steps are the Minister and the Government taking to get us back on track for the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, on which we are currently failing so badly? I can make an offer to the Minister: if he wants to sit down and sort out a raft of new policies, extended commitments to policy programmes, and extensions of the urgency of existing programmes, we will happily jointly draft those with him, so that there is solid buy-in across the House for that vital initial effort.

Secondly, we received the alarming news recently that the Government seemingly intend to roll over historical surpluses—some 88 megatonnes of carbon dioxide saved from the second carbon budget—to ease the passage of the third carbon budget, thus creating a higher starting point for the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. That move is not completely illegitimate in terms of the construction of the Act, but the Committee on Climate change has always recommended that that should not be done, and that banking and borrowing on future budgets would gravely distort the safe progression downwards of carbon dioxide emissions. Similarly, we should not seek to offset our own account through international emissions allowances, as the Government seem intent on doing.

Will the Minister explain why the Government have moved to set aside emission surpluses from earlier budgets? Will he say now that he will unwind that intention and not use them to inflate future budgets? Will he confirm that international offsets will have no place in future budget setting? We note in the explanatory memorandum to the order that despite the committee’s recommendation in the report that the UK legislate as soon as possible to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with the target of a 100% reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 covering all sectors of the economy including aviation and shipping, the Government have, for the time being, merely left headroom in the budgets for international aviation and shipping. Shipping and aviation currently make up 3.2% and 2.1% of global emissions, but this could rise to over 30% if action is not taken alongside other greenhouse gas reductions. What is the Government’s intention with regard to aviation and shipping coming properly and fully into carbon budgets, and why are they continuing to delay what we all know is an essential inclusion if those targets are to be meaningful for the future?

Thirdly, does the Minister recognise, as I am sure he does, that net zero is the practical outcome of the legislation to require a 100% reduction in the UK’s net carbon account? Net zero means that in addition to developing low carbon policies, as we were for the 80% target, we have to develop policies that are essentially carbon negative—that put carbon back into the ground in one way or another to compensate for the remaining positive carbon elements of our overall account. This means that techniques such as BECCS—bio-energy with carbon capture and storage—extended carbon capture and storage, carbon capture from the air and radical afforestation are all important policies for the future target. What plans do the Government have—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but before he comes to his further points I hope he is bearing in mind that there is well under an hour left in this debate and that a great many Members wish to participate.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I have about half a page to go, so I hope that that will keep the timetable intact.

What plans do the Government have to proceed urgently with negative carbon policies? We will be on hand to help them if they want to bring in those policies at an early stage.

Finally, the Minister will no doubt have been copied into the recent letter from the Chancellor concerning legislating for net zero, in which he urged that there should not be legislation until a review of the costs had been carried out by the Treasury. The letter was widely regarded as being somewhat climate economic illiterate, in that it set out only the costs and not the benefits of moving forward in this way. As I said, the Committee on Climate Change indicated that in its opinion the GDP cost of 1% to 2% was unchanged from when the 80% target was set—this was presumably approved by the Treasury. Indeed, as Lord Stern reminded us in his seminal report of 2006, which seems a long time ago, the GDP costs of doing nothing might be several times as much.

Will the Minister provide assurance on that point? Indeed, I take it from the fact that we have this legislation, and that it has not been put off to some time in the future, that the Treasury’s rather insidious advice has not been taken on board. Might it not be a good idea to set out in the round and well in advance what the overall costs and benefits of moving to this target will be? I look forward to the jobs in the low-carbon industries that we will set to work replacing our infrastructure, so that it works for a green future; the immense improvements in the quality of our environment that the measure will bring; and the assurance that we will leave a world fit for our children and grandchildren to live in. That surely does not have a price, but, if it does, it is well worth paying.

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Eleanor Laing

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Review: Use of powers to support technical development—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review which shall consider how the extended use of powers provided for in section 1 will support the technical development of smart meters, with reference to—

(a) alternative solutions for Home Area Network connections where premises are not able to access the HAN using existing connection arrangements,

(b) hard to reach premises.

(2) The Secretary shall lay the report of the review in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how the extension of powers will support technical development of smart meters.

New clause 3—Review: Use of powers to support rollout of smart meters—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review which shall consider how the extended use of powers provided for in section 1 will support the rollout of smart meters, with reference to—

(a) providing for efficient removal and disposal of old meters,

(b) reviewing the exemptions for smaller suppliers from a legally binding requirement to roll out smart meters.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the review in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how the extension of powers supports the rollout of smart meters.

New clause 4—Review of smart meter rollout targets—

“(1) Within 3 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report and a cost benefit analysis relating to the Smart Meter Implementation programme and lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(2) The report under subsection (1) shall consider—

(a) progress towards the 2020 completion target;

(b) smart meter installation cost;

(c) the number of meters operating in dummy mode;

(d) the overall cost to date of the DCC;

(e) the projected cost of the DCC; and

(f) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish details about the cost and progress of the smart meter rollout with reference to the 2020 deadline.

New clause 5—Requirement on suppliers to provide information on cost of smart meter programme to consumers—

“(1) The Energy Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 88(3) (power to amend licence conditions etc: smart meters), insert—

‘(m) provision requiring the holder of a supply licence to include information with consumer bills on the cost to consumers of the Smart Meter Implementation Programme.’”

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State by order to amend licence conditions so that energy suppliers are required to include the cost to the customer of the Smart Meter Programme in all customer energy bills for the period covered by the energy bill.

New clause 6—Smart Meter Implementation Programme: review of cost to consumers—

“(1) Within 3 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent review of the cost to the consumer of the Smart Meter Implementation Programme.

(2) The review under subsection (1) shall include—

(a) a breakdown of the costs to consumers of component parts of the Smart Meters Implementation Programme including the cost of the DCC;

(b) the potential benefits to consumers of information on the cost of the Smart Meter Implementation Programme being included on energy bills and statements;

(c) a longitudinal estimate of the cost to consumers to date and the projected future cost of the Programme; and

(d) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of this review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the cost to the consumer of the Smart Meter Implementation Programme that must consider the potential benefits to consumers of including a summary of the cost on their energy bills and statements.

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(c) in section 56FA(3) after “including” insert “the supply of such meters to energy companies and”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State by order to add “the supplying of smart meters to energy companies” to the list of licensable activities.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 19, at end insert—

“(c) in section 41HA(3) after “including” insert “the supply of such meters to energy companies and”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State by order to add “the supplying of smart meters to energy companies” to the list of licensable activities.

Amendment 1, in clause 6, page 6, line 27, at end insert—

“(15) Prior to making modifications under this section the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation on the potential impact the modifications available to the Secretary of State to secure funding of smcl administration could have on consumer energy prices and shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require that, before considering modifications to ensure funding of smcl administration, the Secretary of State must seek independent evaluation of the impact such modifications would have on consumer energy prices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate that he is dealing with some complex issues that require explanation, but it may have escaped his notice that he has been at the Dispatch Box for almost half an hour. He might not be aware, but I am, that there are other people who wish to take part in this debate, so he might like to consider bringing his remarks on this particular part of the Bill to a conclusion quite soon.

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept that we are dealing with difficult and rather technical issues, and so I thought it was necessary to try to set out for the benefit of the House how these matters might work, but I will of course be very mindful of your guidance to try to make sure, within the restraints of not getting too over-simplified, that I do indeed bring my remarks to a close.

New clause 2, in essence, asks the Minister to consider a specific review to get these arrangements properly under way.

My final question concerns the meters that have been removed as a result of smart meter installation or will be removed because they are SMETS 1 meters replaced by fully interoperable SMETS 2 meters. This problem is not just theoretical; it is happening now. It has several aspects. What about malfunctioning and existing smart meters that are no longer installed and are now redundant? What about the huge number of existing meters that will be removed and need to be disposed of as smart meters are installed? Those meters are not owned by installers but by meter asset providers that finance and ultimately own the meters that are put in. It has been a long-standing arrangement in the industry that meters are not owned by the suppliers but merely read by the suppliers. That means that when a programme is pursued of removing old meters, whether dumb meters or previous generation smart meters, there is a problem in identifying whose meters they are.

The difficulty that we are facing right now—it is not a problem for the future—is that we might see meter mountains arising in this country because the people who are removing the meters do not know who their owners are or who is going to take them away and recycle and dispose of them. I do not want to see, as a result of this roll-out programme, meter mountains, or alps, appearing across the country. We need to be clear about what method of disposal is going to be the most appropriate and workable. If we are not careful, the issue will overwhelm the roll-out, or at least have a significant negative effect on its overall atmosphere. In Committee, the Minister, encouragingly, agreed to set up a roundtable to consider this issue further. New clause 3 now addresses the issue, and I hope that it will be a way of taking it forward.

I have dealt with a number of important questions that have arisen as the smart meter roll-out has progressed. I hope that the roll-out can proceed to a successful and timely conclusion, because that will be important for the future of our energy systems as well as for the future sustainability of people’s electricity and gas supplies, and their ownership of what their bills will look like in future. However, we should not shirk from addressing the real problems that stand in the way of realising that. It is not sufficient to state that all is for the best in the best of possible worlds, and proceed on that assumption. I know that the Minister is working hard to get this right, as are his team in BEIS. The addition of these amendments would give them greater authority and support in making the roll-out work.

Climate Change

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

If the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) looked closely at the difference in the strike prices for Hinkley nuclear and for onshore wind, he would see that the years over which the price is given are quite different—it is twice as long for Hinkley as for onshore wind. The hon. Member for Warrington South, rather than the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), is misleading the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) would not be misleading the House—otherwise, he would not be an honourable Gentleman. If he is inadvertently misleading the House, I am sure he will correct his point. Usually, it is a matter of how one interprets statistics, and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) must not accuse another hon. Gentleman of misleading.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I apologise for the inadvertent omission of the word “inadvertent”?

Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. He made a number of points in his contribution, not all of which support what the Secretary of State was saying this afternoon.

This debate is about ensuring that competition works better across the board—for those who generate and supply power, for those who retail power and for what happens in between. I found curious it that the Secretary of State had the air of a querulous member of the Opposition trying to pick holes in Government policy, using some fairly obscure devices yet apparently forgetting he is the Government.

The Government are presiding over a situation, of which we are all aware, in which competition does not work well at all. We all understand that that is related to the vertical integration of companies that have dealings across the board—in both generation and retail—and the extent to which opportunities to put that right over time have conspicuously been missed. The debate this afternoon over what we do about an energy price freeze and how that brings in other arrangements, which secure much better competition and a much better functioning market, does not solve the problem of world energy prices but goes an enormously long way to ensuring that those arrangements can deliver the best possible outcome, particularly for customers, in the context of varying world prices. The question of whether a price freeze creates a problem for investment seems to be rather misplaced, inasmuch as one argument for a better framework for investment in the future is that if the market works better in the first place people will invest in supply and the workings of the market.

It is not just Centrica that has stopped investing in gas power plants. No one is investing in gas power plants in the UK at the moment; 14 planning permissions are available but only one has been taken up, by an Irish energy company that has a long-term view of how the market will work rather than a short-term view of how it is working. Other plants are being mothballed as we speak. It is not that the market is working well at the moment in attracting investment and future arrangements might harm it; the question is how to maintain the long-term arrangement to secure proper investment.

In some of his rather more obscure defences of the fact that the Government have done only minor things to secure better competition in the market, the Secretary of State mentioned the Ofgem report on wholesale power market liquidity produced a little while ago. The report does not support the Secretary of State’s claims. All it says on the market making obligation is that if the market has

“robust price information…available…along the curve, the market will be functioning sufficiently well to support competition.”

It does not say that along the curve most of the trading is between energy companies, not on the market, and that reforming the day-ahead market does not make any difference. Claims that a pool is only about the day-ahead market are also rather misplaced, in that a functioning pool also deals with issues along the curve. The problem of independent companies having access to the markets is therefore substantially ameliorated by the existence of the pool, because it gives them access to the market that they do not have at the moment.

The Secretary of State says that the Government made some competition changes in the Energy Act 2013: they made only one, which he mentioned and which was a result of an amendment that I tabled, by creating an offtaker of last resort. That was it—that was the one thing in the Energy Act that concerned competition—and now, as a result of going for an auction contract for difference market for established players rather than an administrative market, they have destroyed the effect of that.

The aim is to get competition working better across the board. Things are better for investment in the long term as a result, and that is the way in which we should consider this issue for the future. I suggest therefore that the motion, which says exactly that, is one that the House should embrace, because that is what the markets need to work better for customers and investors—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.