Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. There are currently 174 free schools up and running, of which 40% have already had a section 5 Ofsted inspection, in addition to their pre-opening inspection. Of those, 24% are graded outstanding, which is a staggering achievement for a school that has been open for just four or five terms. This represents a higher proportion than other schools. Some 71% of free schools are graded good or outstanding. We would certainly welcome an application for a new free school in Deal if there is evidence of a need for more good school places.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May I, too, welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box? I would be interested to have his assessment over a coffee some time of his old boss versus his new boss.

As the Minister will be aware, Ofsted said that at one school, children’s reading ability had regressed, and of another school that

“too many pupils are in danger of leaving the school without being able to read and write properly.”

This was Ofsted’s report on two free schools. What early warning systems exist to spot problems in free schools before they become entrenched, and how many free schools are currently under investigation by the Education Funding Agency?

[Mr Speaker]

That is enough material for at least one Adjournment debate, and possibly two. I have a feeling the hon. Gentleman will be putting in his applications before very long.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Let us be clear. We are consulting widely on these changes. The main change is that people should only be supported with extra services, rather than, for example, getting laptops indiscriminately, as they do at the moment. We are talking directly to the representative groups involved and students will not lose out by these changes.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Every one of the 14 letters that the Governor of the Bank of England has written to the Chancellor explaining why the inflation target has not been met has mentioned the rising input cost of resources. What are the Government doing to tackle the problems of input resource price spikes and to incentivise infrastructure in the circular economy to cope with that?

[Vince Cable]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to energy costs, which has been the main issue in the inflation of raw material inputs. My colleague the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks gave a very full answer in explaining the compensation mechanisms that we are introducing to offset them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Across the Department, we work to support supply chains. Specifically, UKTI’s high value opportunities programme targets 100 projects that are based globally. That programme supports not just the primes, but their supply chains in Oxfordshire and across the country.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

One area of export growth has been in recyclate of glass and plastics. Unfortunately, that has had a perverse effect because the packaging recovery note system, which is supposed to direct money into the creation of infrastructure for our own recycling industry, has been denied the feedstock that the industry needs if it is to grow. Will the Minister look at what more he can do to expand our recycling industry, rather than export it?

[Matthew Hancock]

I would be delighted to speak to the hon. Gentleman to understand more about the packaging recycling industry and to see whether we can tackle that problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I would be delighted to congratulate Tresham institute on what it is doing to help young people into work. Work experience is a vital part of getting a job and I hope it is also working on the new traineeship programme, which is designed to help people into an apprenticeship or a sustainable job.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

What impact and what offence does the Secretary of State believe have been caused to Jewish and Muslim businesses by the statement from the chief veterinary officer today, threatening to ban the practice of shechita and halal?

[Vince Cable]

I confess that I have not yet absorbed the significance of that statement. We will certainly consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I would be delighted to visit the site, and the mountains, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. The site to which he refers is extraordinary and in its prime, in the North sea oil boom, it built the largest mobile structure on the planet at 600,000 tonnes. It has great potential, and if this supply chain development takes place, 2,500 new jobs will be created. We want to do everything we can to make that possible, and the announcement yesterday certainly helps. He will know that the Catapult in Glasgow is working on the technology behind offshore wind developments, and we will do everything we possibly can to make sure that Kishorn and other UK ports develop on the back of that rapidly growing industry.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State speaks of a rapidly growing industry, but the commitment by the Government three years ago was to 40GW of offshore by 2020. The commitment yesterday was for 10GW. Why has that commitment shrunk to 25% of what it was?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that Britain has by far the largest offshore wind industry in the world, and under the guarantees that we gave yesterday it now has the incentive to expand—and will do so, both onshore through the supply chain and offshore in the wind farms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Timpson]

In the light of the recent tragic case of Daniel Pelka, we look carefully at what we could learn from the serious case review. It seemed clear to us that the most important focus of our work had to be on understanding what went wrong and why, as opposed to trying to single out individuals at that stage of the investigation. We want everyone to prioritise the protection of children, whatever role they have, whether it is at the level of director of children’s services or working on the front line. We need to send out the message, “We are there to support you in your work, but where you need to be challenged, where there are basic practice failures, we will do so and make sure we put it right.”

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

4. What plans he has to ensure an adequate supply of primary school places; and if he will make a statement.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

13. What plans he has to ensure an adequate supply of primary school places; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

We will spend £5 billion by 2015 on creating new school places across the country—more than double the amount spent by the previous Government in the same time frame. We have worked closely with councils on reforms to school place funding so that it is now more accurate than ever before.

[Barry Gardiner]

Two years ago, Brent had a surplus of primary school places: this year, 614 children are without one. Has the removal of local authorities’ powers to plan and review school places impacted to more damaging effect in any other borough in the country than in Brent, where we now have a 12.5% shortage?

[Mr Laws]

No, the hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. What has done damage to place planning in large parts of the country is the removal by the last Labour Government of 200,000 primary school places, even after the Office for National Statistics reported the biggest increase in the birth rate since the second world war. I have some figures for the hon. Gentleman about his borough. Basic need funding for Brent in the last four years under Labour was £33.8 million, which I acknowledge is a lot of money. Under this coalition Government that has now risen to £114 million, an increase of 240%.

Apprenticeships

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, we have specific pilots to deal with this issue. The employer ownership pilot involves a consortium led by Rolls-Royce, BAE and others and it is aimed at increasing the number of women engaged in engineering. The best argument in favour comes from apprentices themselves. The apprentice of the year is a female engineer who works on the Typhoon Eurofighter. She is an inspiration, and it is the arguments that she puts—better than me—that will help to encourage girls and young women to look to engineering as an exciting career prospect.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister find it within himself to praise the General, Municipal and Boilermakers Union for its initiative with British Gas? Will he acknowledge that it is precisely the green skills apprenticeships that they are piloting together that will be the engine of growth?

[Matthew Hancock]

The engine of growth can come from all sectors in our economy. Apprenticeships have support across the piece. For instance, I find myself agreeing with Dave Prentis of Unison on the importance of employer ownership, so this is an area in respect of which many different parts of society and economy—including, no doubt, parts of the GMB—can work together to ensure that skill provision is made available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Indeed, I have now been twice to MIRA. It is a magnificent institution and one of the most successful in the UK at promoting advanced technology. MIRA has benefited from the regional growth fund and a successful enterprise zone, and could well expand to become a world-class centre for transport technology.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The growth of businesses in rural areas is being constrained by the lack of access to broadband. Even where businesses can achieve the Government’s target of 2 megabits, they are finding that that is the download speed, and they are still constrained by the greatly inferior upload speed. Will the Government consider reassessing the 2015 target of 2 megabits?

[Michael Fallon]

I will certainly do that. This is an issue for businesses in rural areas across the country. Clause 7 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will help to accelerate the roll-out of broadband, not least in rural areas, but the hon. Gentleman joined his party in voting against it on Monday night.

Energy Supply

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I simply want to say that during all the time I have served on the Committee, it has always been aware of the Chairman’s interests, and at no time have any of us felt that those interests have in any way impeded or compromised the work of the Committee. He has been absolutely scrupulous in declaring those interests and making clear his position. I deprecate the journalism that has sought to besmirch the work of the Committee, which I believe is what journalists have tried to do, by suggesting that there has been any compromise. I welcome the fact that the Chairman has made such a statement.

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

The House is very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution.

[Mr Yeo]

I, too, am grateful for that entirely unsolicited intervention from my colleague.

I also point out that I have been a strong and consistent advocate of greater investment in renewable energy for almost two decades—ever since I first took an interest in climate change when I was rather unexpectedly given ministerial responsibility for it in 1993. I believe that Britain needs investment in many forms of low-carbon technology, which of course includes nuclear power, and the suggestion that my views on the subject could possibly have been influenced by interests that I did not acquire until 2006 is simply absurd.

I warmly welcome the new Minister to his post. He comes in at a very challenging time in his Department’s history. We, as a Committee, look forward to working closely with him. We worked very closely with his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). I would like to take this opportunity to pay public tribute to him as an exceptionally conscientious, straightforward, knowledgeable and trustworthy Minister. He will be much missed—certainly by me, and I think by the whole Committee—and his knowledge of the issues, at a time when rather complex legislation is going through the House, is something that I hope my hon. Friend the new Minister will also soon acquire. I wish him well in his task.

I also thank my colleagues on the Committee for their work in producing not just the report that we are debating, but an extraordinary number of reports over the past 12 months. I also pay tribute to our very hard-working staff.

It is almost a year since the publication of the report that we are debating, and the concerns that we expressed then are almost exactly the same as those that we would express now. Britain is, of course, very dependent on imported fossil fuels for its energy, and anxieties about the level of generating capacity remain. The concerns about the fact that much of our existing capacity, in the form of the old coal and nuclear plants, will retire very soon, and about the need for that to be replaced, are as acute today—if not more acute—as they were last year. Absolutely enormous investment is needed in new capacity, storage facilities and so on. In the past year, there has still been progress, albeit insufficient, on energy efficiency, and on carbon capture and storage.

Britain remains a big net importer of energy—the figure was 29% last year. We are very lucky to have Norway on our doorstep, which is a friendly and reliable supplier of gas, but it is still desirable that we try to minimise our dependence on imports. In my view, that supports the argument for exploiting our shale gas reserves, for which we look to the Department of Energy and Climate Change for early approval, as has been recommended by the Committee. We will soon return to that subject, and I hope that we get the go-ahead soon.

Norway is a friendly supplier of gas, but even that fact cannot insulate us from future gas price spikes. Those who advocate relying mainly on gas to generate our electricity must recognise not only that, without the so far unproven economic availability of carbon capture and storage, gas cannot possibly get us to the 50 grams per kWh emissions target set by the Committee on Climate Change for 2030, but that there is also a real danger, as the Asian economies continue to grow, that global demand for gas will drive prices up, meaning that Britain’s economy will become less competitive if gas is our principal source of electricity generation.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recalls the “World Energy Outlook” report and our interview with its head, Fatih Birol that drew particular attention to the fact that as Russian gas from western Siberia is gradually going offstream, the eastern Siberian gas fields will then come onstream. The likelihood is that there will be a decrease in the gas from Russia that comes into Europe and that, as the countries of Asia—China and India—see a rise in their need for gas, the eastern Siberian stream will increasingly be pulled down there. The position of Russia will therefore put Europe in a very different situation vis-à-vis gas.

[Mr Yeo]

The hon. Gentleman—in terms of the Committee’s work, he is probably my hon. Friend—is absolutely right about that point. The situation will get much more serious from Europe’s point of view in relation to its reliance on imports from Russia. I commend the work of the International Energy Agency, and especially of Fatih Birol, who has a particularly mature and perceptive view of long-term energy trends. The IEA’s work gives us a lot of warnings.

Despite all that, in what I hope will be a diversified mix of energy sources—gas, nuclear, low-carbon and renewables—gas will remain important in the next 15 years. We cannot do without it, so I hope that the Government’s gas strategy will include a further expansion of gas storage capacity, which is currently only a fraction of that routinely maintained by Germany, Italy, France and the United States.

Our report also recommended that the Government should set up an independent central agency to manage Britain’s strategic oil stocks, so we look forward to progress on that. We distinguished, although not everyone does, between independence and security. Independence of energy supplies is not attainable for Britain in the foreseeable future but, in any event, security is more important. Security means much more than just reliable sources and supplies of energy, although that is a pre-requisite, as it makes storage and interconnection important factors, too. It means having adequate generating capacity and a mix of generation that delivers value for money to consumers and protects consumers in the event of a much higher carbon price, which may well emerge—indeed, it is likely—in the 2020s and 2030s.

I note en passant, and with approval, the continued spread of emissions trading as a policy instrument. It has been adopted in a growing number of countries, although that trend that was not apparent three years ago. We now see it in countries in Asia, in Australia and in parts of America, and pilots are taking place inside China, as we reported recently. That points to the use of emissions trading and the possibility of a rising carbon price in 15 or 20 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak in this important debate, and I am particularly delighted to welcome the Minister to his position. His work within his previous skills portfolio was much respected, and I think that many of us hope that he will bring not only the dedication that he showed in that role, but his focus on developing green skills, into this new portfolio, where he is considering the UK’s energy supply. It is a difficult time to be taking on the brief, and I think that we all sympathise with him for taking over at this juncture, with so much on his ministerial plate. I assure him that the Committee—both sides of it, I think—will seek to co-operate with him to ensure that he gets his feet under the ministerial desk as quickly as possible and can take the brief forward.

I do not want to go over the ground that the Chairman of the Committee and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) have already covered—I entirely agree with most of what they said, particularly the hon. Lady’s call for certainty in policy. She is absolutely right; that is one of the key things that will hold back—is already holding back—the investor community from pressing ahead with the sort of investments that we need, if we are to see the £200 billion investment come on stream and ensure that we have the continuity of a secure supply of energy over the next decade.

I want to focus on subsidy and the importance of getting subsidy right. Earlier this summer, there was a contretemps between the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change on the subsidy for onshore wind. The debate was not phrased in that way; it was phrased, “How much can we cut from that subsidy?” Should the subsidy be cut by 10%, which is the Department’s public position? Or should it be the far more severe cut of 25% proposed by the Treasury? Interestingly, the Department won the day in that political debate. In a straight fight between the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, most people in most circumstances would back the Chancellor, but in this case the Department won.

We need to consider the economic case for onshore wind. The new Minister has previously commented on onshore wind. We subsidise the technology, which operates intermittently. Wind does not blow all the time and cannot provide the base load of electricity supply. On a number of occasions, the Minister has remarked on the way in which the technology adversely affects communities in the countryside.

Long-term subsidies are not good. I think we can all agree with that. In my view, we should not subsidise any energy in the long term. Subsidies should never be a permanent feature of any market. Subsidies should be introduced only to address market failure and they should be withdrawn gradually as such market distortions are addressed. I hope even the Chancellor and the Treasury accept the economic rectitude of those remarks. Whether they can square that with this country’s ongoing fossil fuel subsidy is an entirely different matter.

Last year, the OECD estimated that, in 2010, UK subsidies for coal, gas and petrol amounted to £3.6 billion. Additionally, the Chancellor announced in his 2012 Budget further exploration and production subsidies of £65 million to develop the west of Shetland fields. The market failures addressed by those subsidies are unclear. On the contrary, fossil fuels appear to have an entrenched subsidy culture in which such taxpayer handouts are regarded as a right, rather than a means of addressing an otherwise unlevel playing field.

By contrast, the total subsidy paid to onshore wind amounted to less than £400 million in 2010-11, or £6 on the average household’s annual bill. That gives a better sense of the subsidy onshore wind currently enjoys against the £3.6 billion in consumption subsidies that fossil fuels enjoy before factoring in the cost of carbon emissions.

[David Mowat]

I am interested in the make-up of the £3.6 billion. Are we talking about tax reductions, or am I missing something?

[Barry Gardiner]

I hesitate to speak for the OECD, but my understanding is that the £65 million is composed of production subsidies, VAT subsidies and other things. I am sure information on the figures is available from the OECD, because they are the OECD’s figures, not mine.

[David Mowat]

I am sorry, but I do not understand that answer, because £3.6 billion is a very large amount of money. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point if that figure is a true reflection of the situation, and it is reasonable to ask how the money is being transferred at that rate to the energy companies and, presumably, their shareholders, because that had previously passed me by.

[Barry Gardiner]

Members of Parliament are not noted for admitting ignorance, but I am happy to do so. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed breakdown, but that figure has been given by the OECD. As I said in response to his previous intervention, my understanding is that the subsidy is accounted for in VAT subsidies and in other production subsidies, such as the ones I mentioned. I cannot go further than that. I do not claim to be the economist or accountant who worked out the figures published by the OECD, to which I refer him.

The real market failure is that the environmental, economic and social costs of greenhouse gas emissions are not properly factored into our fossil fuel price. The Government recognise that and have tried to attribute a price to carbon emissions through the EU emissions trading scheme. Unfortunately, the carbon price has neither been stable enough, as the Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned earlier, nor high enough to redress that market failure, even for the 40% of UK carbon emissions covered by the ETS. Fossil fuels are operating in a market tilted distinctly in their favour. Those who support renewables such as onshore wind that do not produce polluting carbon emissions are perhaps entitled to claim that there is clear justification for that level—albeit a very low level, as I have shown—of subsidy.

Bringing new technologies to market can be difficult, and many technologies have died in the valley that lies between demonstrator a prototype and full commercial development. If the UK is to develop world-leading renewable technologies, such as those mentioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee, particularly marine technologies, we need further subsidies to enable renewables to make that transition from prototype to full commercial scale. The renewables obligation subsidy introduced by the previous Government was designed to do that to some extent and supported new wind generation as the technology successively improved and economies of scale reduced production costs. It is worth noting that it is onshore wind’s positive trajectory in reducing costs that led the Department to argue that the subsidy could be reduced by 10% in the first place. As the technologies become cheaper, it is right to scale down the subsidies. That trajectory has led some in the industry to project that onshore wind will be cost competitive with gas by 2020, which brings another element to our discussion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) highlighted that differential and the possibility of seeing cheaper gas in the UK because of shale gas in the United States.

Clear social and environmental costs are associated with shale gas in the United States, and the Committee flagged them up in its report on the potential for shale gas in the UK. However, at every point we should aim to factor the cost of pollution into the true cost of the fuels that we use. That is really how we should evaluate the cost. We do not, for example, factor into the cost of fossil fuels the cost to the health service of people with bronchial or asthmatic conditions caused by carbon emissions from diesel and petrol engines. If we want to get a far better handle on our energy needs and supply, and the security of that supply, let us compare the true costs of the separate parts of our energy mix, and not simply look at the market cost.

I want to go off slightly on a tangent and mention, in response to the shale gas debate, one other aspect that I think it important to draw to the attention of the House. As shale gas provides the USA with increasingly low-cost fossil fuel, there will be a substantial shift in American foreign policy, which has been fixated on the middle east—for good reason. Its fossil fuel supply has substantially depended on stability in the middle east providing continuity of supply. The discovery and exploitation of shale gas in the United States significantly changes that perspective, and when we look to the future of European and UK energy we need to factor that in too. The drivers that caused the US to be so involved with middle east countries will shift. We need to recognise that, as much as we recognise the shift happening in the gas fields in Siberia, and the rise in demand from India and China.

There is one further thing I want to comment on: the fourth pillar of the Government’s proposals on electricity market reform—the emissions performance standard, the carbon floor price and the way in which they interact. Is not it strange that the emissions performance standard was set at 450 grams per kWh? Whom did the Department think it was fooling by setting that figure? It is clear that it was set because it excludes dirty coal without carbon capture and storage, but it has a beneficial effect on investment in nuclear, boosting the price.

In the past year and a half, the Committee has spent a lot of time talking to the investment community, which has been generous with its time and views and has made clear the way in which the risks associated with different technologies and energies manifest themselves. There are planning, construction, operational and price risks and, particularly with the nuclear industry, a decommissioning risk. The key matters on which the investment community focused in discussions with the Committee were construction risk and the period during which capital is exposed in the construction of new nuclear, as opposed to new gas, technology, and the different lengths of time needed to get production in place and price coming through. The investment community made clear to the Committee its belief that without Government subsidy—not covert subsidy by way of price subsidy through the EPS but real subsidy in relation to those risks and the extra cost of capital—there will not be the level of nuclear infrastructure development that the Government have said they want.

I come back to where I began on the question of subsidy: without a much more transparent understanding of the subsidies going to fossil fuels, and the lack of accounting for their cost in damage to health and the environment, and pollution; without factoring those things in; without a clear understanding of the subsidies necessary as technologies develop, and the reduction in subsidy necessary as they become more cost-effective; and without transparency about the real subsidies that the Government are offering the nuclear industry, and the structuring necessary to get the development we need, we will not have a successful energy policy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. This is a welcome and timely debate. Debates on Energy and Climate Change Committee reports are, by their nature, wide-ranging and touch on a number of issues. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, the report is relatively short, but issues of energy security and energy independence touch on a wide range of Government policies, not all of which are the responsibility of the Minister. I commend the speeches by the Chair, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), and other members of the Select Committee for touching on some of those issues. Given the time available, I do not intend to repeat points that have already been made, but I will perhaps come on to some other recommendations in the report.

I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment and welcome him to his post. As other hon. Members have said, he takes up his post at an important time for energy policy. He follows the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who had the respect of hon. Members across the House and the entire industry for the diligent way in which he undertook his duties, and for the accommodating way he would listen to and engage with different views from across the political divide on the areas for which he was responsible. I wish him well in whatever he does next. I wish the Minister well, too. He was well regarded for the seriousness with which he engaged with the skills agenda, his previous portfolio. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made clear, the skills agenda is perhaps even more important in the energy sector. I look forward to discussing these issues with him in the House in the months, and possibly years, ahead.

Energy security cuts across many areas of Government policy, so there are many challenges for the Government as whole. As the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) said, this is an ongoing issue, not a new challenge that has suddenly arrived. It is to the detriment of government and governance when a difficult challenge gets left and is pushed along a bit on the agenda. There is a danger in the timing of such things. As the hon. Member for Warrington South said in a slightly different context, people keep waiting until it is almost too late, and sometimes the decisions are not necessarily the right ones and the costs associated with fixing them do not necessarily provide the best value for the taxpayer.

On page 43 of the report, the Committee described energy security as

“keeping the lights on, buildings warm, vehicles moving, businesses operating and electrical appliances running”.

That is a good, practical encapsulation of energy security. Although it is not the most glamorous subject and does not always attract attention in the same emotional way as other aspects of this brief, it is important to the economic future of our country. It is difficult to overstate the importance of those factors, because a safe and secure energy supply is vital to our economic recovery, both in creating jobs, which are desperately needed for millions of people throughout the country, and ensuring that businesses can rely on the energy supply.

I want to mention a couple of recommendations in the report. The report is almost a year old and makes points about the Government’s electricity market reform policy proposals. Since it was published, the Committee has undertaken pre-legislative scrutiny on the draft Bill. It is striking, however, that much of the criticism from the first report, even after pre-legislative scrutiny, remains valid. I am sure that EMR issues are high in the Minister’s in-tray and that he looks forward to responding to the Committee’s report on the draft Bill before it is introduced later this year. The EMR process is a key feature in securing the UK’s energy supply for the future, in terms of securing investment and setting out the certainty and predictability, as hon. Members have mentioned, which are important in getting investment in place.

Both reports touched on the capacity mechanism. I am sure that the Minister will be keen to deal with that as soon as possible. In the evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny report in March, Ian Marchant of SSE commented—I do not agree with everything that he says, but I agree with this—that the

“the biggest issue at the moment is…uncertainty…the Government has created”,

for want of a better phrase,

“a known unknown.”

Knowing that there will be a capacity mechanism but not exactly what it will be, people will wait and see what the mechanism is, so there is a danger of creating a hiatus in investment. It is vital that we deal with that matter as soon as possible.

The Committee considered the relationship between Government and industry, specifically in relation to the oil and gas offshore industry and the impact that that can have on investment in the UK. It concluded, in reference to the measures announced in Budget 2011, that there is a need for a constructive relationship to restore industry confidence and maximise the benefits from the UK continental shelf. That is important.

I appreciate and acknowledge that since then the Department has done work to reinvigorate PILOT, the industry-Government body, and on establishing the fiscal forum, which is important. Although any Government have the right to adjust their fiscal policies to meet circumstances, the way that the changes were announced at the time—almost without any prior warning or degree of consultation—highlights the possibility and danger of an adverse impact on investment and, therefore, on revenues coming in. Various statements were made at the time about the impact of those changes, but because it is such a long-term industry those will not yet be known for certain. However, the report touches on that important point.

My previous point feeds into the wider, broader issue of certainty. Government decisions in the past couple of years serve to underline the degree of uncertainty. Oil and Gas UK claimed at the time that the UK was regarded as one of the

“most unstable…provinces in the world by many investors”.

Thinking about some other environments, that is quite an alarming statement. I hope some of that damage has been or is in the process of being undone. Similarly, in relation to other measures, including the feed-in tariff, renewables obligation and the banding review, about which there was movement backwards and forwards, sometimes such public discussions and squabbles send a signal to the wider investment community that they cannot necessarily rely on what the Government will do. That is a dangerous position to get into. I hope that the Minister, in his early weeks and months in his new role, seeks to provide the appropriate amount of certainty and predictability.

The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned the refining industry. The Government have committed to undertake a refining strategy, which is timely, and they will publish it later this year. However, that is too late for people employed at Coryton refinery. It is worrying when a fully functioning refinery with high environmental standards—perhaps one of the best in the UK—is closed with the loss of an estimated 850 high-skilled and high-paid local jobs that made a significant contribution to the local economy. The strategic issues in relation to our refining capacity are serious, as is our ending up importing refined product as a result. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will consider those issues. The Committee has a full agenda, but it may wish to consider these issues and keep an eye on them, because Select Committees can bring a degree of vigour and impartiality to such discussions.

During pre-legislative scrutiny the Committee criticised the draft Energy Bill for not including any measures on demand reduction. Hon. Members have mentioned demand reduction. It is hard to disagree with the Committee’s saying,

“It is completely unsatisfactory that DECC's work was not completed in time to be published alongside the draft Bill. This suggests that DECC is still failing to give enough priority to ensuring that demand-side measures contribute to our energy policy goals.”

Over the summer the McKinsey report, published for further comment, highlighted 11 key barriers to capturing the potential of energy reduction. Other hon. Members may have missed the Secretary of State’s saying that he was intending to graft some demand-reduction measures on to the draft Bill—that was at a Liberal Democrat summer school, so the attendance and attention might not have been huge—but I note the Committee’s warning that

“adding last-minute measures to an already pre-determined structure of a Bill may severely limit what can be achieved on demand reduction”.

That is important.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Committee said, in its recent report on climate change, that only 60,000 of the 330,000 solid wall insulations, which the Government indicated were necessary, had been installed. That is an important indication of how serious the situation is.

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

Order. I am worried that the Minister will have little time to respond to the report. The Committee Chairman would also like to say something.

Public Disorder

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

We meet today as the country reels from the senseless and sickening scenes that it has seen. People’s feelings are raw, and the full enormity of events is only just sinking in, but at least Parliament has today begun to give voice to people’s concerns. It has articulated clearly the majority feeling in the country that this was a mindless spree of violence for which no excuses can be made, and which must be dealt with severely.

We have made a start on the long and difficult task of rebuilding communities shattered by the experience, bridging the divide between the generations, and bringing the country back together. For thousands of people, this has been the worst and most terrifying week of their life. Some have seen homes and businesses lost or damaged; others have felt real fear on the streets where they live, perhaps for the first time. Many of them will have been watching our debate today. They will have heard powerful contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks); from the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell); and from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), to name a few.

I hope that in the powerful words of those speeches, the people watching our debate have heard echoes of their own thoughts—things said that they feel needed to be said. It is small comfort, but perhaps they will end today with at least some sense that somebody is listening—that they are our priority. They must remain so over the coming weeks until Parliament resumes.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that when Parliament resumes, those hon. Members whose constituencies have been affected but who have not been able to engage in this debate due simply to lack of time today will have a chance to revisit the issue and put on record their constituents’ concerns, including about their livelihoods, which have been threatened?

[Andy Burnham]

It is vital that hon. Members have that opportunity, as my hon. Friend suggests. The issues will not go away once the media crews depart, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said. People in the communities concerned will live with the issues for some time, and it is vital that we follow the matter through. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, we need to stand side by side with the communities affected. She spoke for not just her constituency, but every proud and right-minded person in Greater Manchester, and I thank her for what she said.

For the most part, the contributions have been well judged. They have avoided political point-scoring, self-serving or simplistic arguments, or excuses; people quite simply do not want to hear that. Instead, we must all focus on the job in hand, on a practical response, on lessons learned and on serious reflection on the deeper reasons why this happened. We have made a good start today on that task, and have sent a number of unambiguous messages. The first, to the courts and the legal system, is that all Members of the House expect them to bring the perpetrators to justice quickly and without leniency. The second message today, which is to the police, fire and ambulance services—and indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said, to unsung public servants such as council workers and youth service workers—is that we deeply appreciate their efforts in recent days to protect our communities, and that they will have full backing from across the House for an uncompromising response, should problems recur. Thirdly, we have sent a message to the victims of the appalling crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We have had a very good debate today, and the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been of a uniformly high standard. The contributions made by hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made me proud to be a Member of Parliament. It was a vindication of your decision, Mr Speaker, to recall the House. In the past 15 months, Parliament has resumed its central place in the life of the nation, and the House and its Committees have done superb work. Once again, today, Members have faithfully reflected their constituents’ concerns and spoken in a way that enhances the reputation of the House and electoral politics.

I am particularly grateful to hon. Members from Lewisham, Enfield, Ilford, Ealing, Wolverhampton, Hackney, Tottenham, Battersea, Bristol, Liverpool and Manchester for their speeches, which reflected their direct personal engagement with those who have been victims of this terrible week. The fact that they all spoke with such force and eloquence underlines the fact that we have Members who listen and are in touch, who act and then report back and who analyse what has gone wrong and argue for a better country. In that sense, when I hear calls for a commission of inquiry, I take the old-fashioned view that Members of Parliament are inquiring into the state of the nation, reporting back to the House and arguing passionately for change and that we should always stress that there is no better voice of the nation than this Chamber, and it has never done its job better than at the moment, reflecting the anger but also the hope of our constituents.

[Barry Gardiner]

Despite what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, does he understand the concern not just in the House but across the nation that a public inquiry should be held into the events that have gone on? This has been a national event; it has affected people in every part of the country, and if it is simply left to a Select Committee, they will not feel that it has been properly addressed.

[Michael Gove]

The point was made constructively, and I hope to respond in a constructive fashion. I will not rule anything out at this stage. We are still in the middle of restoring order. It is vital and appropriate that we show ourselves open to learning lessons, but I absolutely have confidence in the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The Home Affairs Committee has done a great job in the past 15 months, and he will do a superb job. The terms of reference of his inquiry seem to be broad and comprehensive. But, of course, lessons will need to be learned, and while we are in the process of restoring order it would be premature for any of us to say that our minds are closed to any constructive suggestion about what we can learn.