Business of the House

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The next questions to the relevant Secretary of State are not until 9 May, so I will write and make sure that he has heard what she has said.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

As a keen motorcyclist, I welcome the Government setting out an ambitious vision for the moped, motorcycle and entire powered light vehicle sector in their 2021 transport decarbonisation plan. A road map to realising that vision is in their joint action plan with the Motorcycle Industry Association. The key to reducing emissions and alleviating congestion is improving access to the sector through a full-scale licence review. Can we please have a debate in Government time on the Motorcycle Industry Association’s A Licence to Net Zero campaign?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that campaign. He will know that the Department has been meeting with that body—I think that they met at a roundtable on 17 January—and with other parts of industry on the issues that he touches on. Although there are no current plans to reform category L vehicle licences, officials met stakeholders at the end of last year, and I think that they are due to have a follow-up ministerial roundtable with the relevant Minister shortly after the May recess, which that particular trade body will be attending. However, I thank my right hon. Friend for continuing to campaign on its behalf.

Voting by Proxy (Amendment and Extension)

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Treasurer of His Majesty's Household (Craig Whittaker)]

I shall be brief. Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I thank the Procedure Committee for its helpful report and recommendations. I also thank the Women and Equalities Committee and its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for their recommendations, which have really enhanced the other Committee’s report.

As was set out at the start of the debate, the Government welcome the step of implementing the pilot scheme, which will offer greater assistance to Members with serious long-term illness or injury. I am grateful to the Committee for indicating that it will review this change to the scheme, and I think it is important that the pilot should be implemented permanently only if the Committee can reassure the House that it has worked well.

I welcome the thoughtful debate that we have had today. It was wonderful to see and hear the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) here today and have her endorsement that we are finally starting to take disability and accessibility for Members seriously in this place. I know how hard she has campaigned, over a very long period, for these changes and I must say huge congratulations to her on a personal level as well.

The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, asked three questions. The first was around maintaining the confidentiality of the individual Member. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) said, although proxy voting is designed to be a transparent and open process for constituents, we do have the nodding through and pairing process from our superb and excellent Whips’ Offices, which ensures discretion if preferred by the Member; and of course the Procedure Committee will consider confidentiality when it assesses the pilot scheme.

The hon. Member for Bristol West also asked about the threshold of injury or illness. That ties in with a question asked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). This is a highly pragmatic scheme, for which the Speaker will have discretion. Mr Speaker will also publish updated guidance to the scheme in due course. I hope that answers that question.

Finally, the hon. Member for Bristol West asked about the assessment process for the pilot. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said that the process used during the pilot conducted in 2019—assessment by those who actually used the scheme—would be applied here too. If more time is needed because of lack of use of the scheme, it will be for the House to decide whether to allow more time for that pilot scheme. I think that covers most of the questions that were asked.

[Karen Bradley]

It is wonderful to see my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box. Could I ask for his commitment that the Government will facilitate that vote to allow the pilot scheme to be carried forward, and allow the House to make that decision?

[Craig Whittaker]

The straightforward and right answer to that is yes. We will make sure that gets facilitated.

There is much more we can consider when looking at how we adapt some of our proceedings in the House to make them fit for the 21st century and—as the wonderful hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said—make it a more modern environment for Members, as well as those who are not Members who come into this place. There is no question in my mind but that we need to continue to make progress, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reflect carefully on the points made in today’s debate. I hope Members will support the motion, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That:

(1) this House

(a) believes that Members experiencing serious long-term illness or injury should be entitled, but not required, to discharge their responsibilities to vote in this House by proxy, under a pilot scheme issued by the Speaker and reviewed by the Procedure Committee;

(b) directs the Speaker to amend the scheme governing the operation of proxy voting in accordance with paragraphs 1-40 of the First Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 383, on Proxy voting and the presence of babies in the Chamber and Westminster Hall; and

(c) directs the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the temporary amendment to Standing Order No. 39A no later than 17 March 2023.

Ordered,

That,

(2) the following amendments to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made:

(a) in paragraph 2, delete “absence from the precincts of the House for”;

(b) in paragraph 2, delete “childbirth or care of an infant or newly adopted child” and insert—

“(a) childbirth;

(b) care of an infant or newly adopted child; and

(c) complications relating to childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss”; and

(c) delete paragraph 7.

Ordered,

That,

(3) the following amendment to Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) be made, and have effect from 17 October until 30 April 2023: in paragraph (2) insert

“(d) serious long-term illness or injury”.

Business of the House

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let me first commend the hon. Lady for her diligence in pursuing this case. Since she last raised the matter, I have raised it with the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister. After today, I will pursue it further and try to ensure that she receives an early reply to the representations she has been making on behalf of her constituent.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

The Government have been told by the insurance industry that all businesses are offered flood insurance for their businesses, but we know after devastating floods in Calder Valley over Christmas that that is not the case—and where it is, we know that the premiums and excesses are often extortionate, unaffordable and unfair. May we have a debate on flood insurance for business and on whether the Government will begin negotiations with the insurance industry on behalf of business, as they did with domestic properties and Flood Re?

Business of the House

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I fear I cannot promise time to the hon. Lady immediately, but I recognise the problem. The Government in England and the devolved Administrations work closely together on the development of the vaccination programme. If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to correspond with her, sharing that with the Northern Ireland Health Minister.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Among other things, the purpose of Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is to make the system open, honest and transparent, reduce the cost of politics and help raise the standing of MPs with the public. In the light of IPSA’s announcement this morning of a 9.2% pay raise for MPs, along with a cost-neutral package of reforms, may we have a debate on whether IPSA is fit for purpose? It is totally out of touch with what is going on in the country, has not reduced the cost of politics and does nothing to contribute to raising the standing of MPs with such packages.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware that IPSA’s proposal is not a final determination, as the pay element is subject to a statutory review. We have made progress: in July, there was a package that would have cost more. IPSA has tried, as he will see in today’s publication, not to increase the cost of politics. Since it put the new scheme of costs and expenses in place, the cumulative reduction in total cost in the past three years is £35.8 million, so the cost of politics is being reduced. The Government are doing their bit. The Prime Minister and his colleagues reduced Ministers’ pay by 5%, compared with our predecessors, at the start of this Government, and that has been frozen for the life of this Parliament. There is a particular point relating to IPSA’s judgment on MPs’ pay at a time of continuing pay restraint in the public sector, on which it has to listen to party leaders.

HEALTH

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is always a difficult act to follow, but it is always a pleasure to do so, and I look forward to hearing the result of his talent contest.

I wish to inject a serious note, because I am asking the Government to rethink their consultation paper, “Judicial Review: proposals for reform”. I speak as someone with experience working for the previous Government on judicial reviews. Yes, they come in thick and fast, but in my view they are a necessary safety valve for society and uphold the rule of law. They are the foundations of our democracy. What is a judicial review? It is a review of a decision by a public authority—a review of legality, unfairness or reasonableness, or of whether there was a personal interest in any decision taken by a public authority.

My first concern is about the consultation period. The paper was published last week, and, in my view, the consultation period is not long enough. I have been in many judicial reviews where judges have expressed concern that there has been little or hardly any consultation. This consultation is taking place over the Christmas period. It is not even the length of a legal term. It will last for six weeks, at least two of which will be taken up by Christmas and new year. That might even be grounds for a challenge. What is the case for change? Page nine of the document states that judicial review has developed far beyond its original intentions. That is not a proper reason based on evidence; it is an opinion.

We are dealing with old powers that go back centuries. Some of the remedies have Latin words such as certiorari, mandamus and even habeas corpus. They have been exercised more extensively, because there has been much more legislation, and that is my second point. The Government are concerned about the growth of judicial review, but, because there is more legislation, there will be more challenges. When decisions are made and discretion goes beyond what Parliament has laid down in legislation, of course there should be challenges. These proceedings are not brought before the court lightly. Judges take very seriously the use and abuse of the court process and do their best to filter out vexatious claims.

My third point is that the Government want to change the process for granting permission to bring judicial review proceedings. Their own evidence shows that permission hearings—first on paper, then orally—are a good filter of cases, so what are the figures? In 2011, 7,600 applications were considered by the court, but only one in six was granted. That makes 1,200. That, to me, shows a court doing its job. It is one gigantic filter. Furthermore, only 300 permissions were granted for an oral hearing.

The oral permissions are important, because they are about getting a fair crack of the whip—to use a judicial review term—and it is right that those cases that have been filtered out get a second chance, because there might be new evidence. Even when they get to the stage of a hearing and an appeal, judges, particularly in immigration cases, are now ordering that the appeal can be pursued from abroad. I am astounded at the suggestion on page 11 that a victory in a judicial review is only a pyrrhic victory. It is a victory in terms of court. It is referred back to the original body for consideration, either because the decision was exercised unlawfully or unreasonably, or on one of the other grounds of judicial review. That is a proper victory within the grounds of judicial review.

I am also concerned about the timeliness aspect. The Government say that judicial review cases take a long time. These are not cases in the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce mould. Where is the evidence that there is delay beyond the three months? Most cases are dealt with in a timely fashion. There is a pre-action protocol that allows information to be exchanged before a case goes to court to be settled. The Government want to reduce the time limit from three months to six weeks in planning cases. That will not make them go away or get dealt with any quicker. What has to be looked at is the listing for a hearing. That is where the delay is. I have said before in the Chamber that we need more judges and more court time. The fact that some of the cases have been heard outside the Strand—in Cardiff, Manchester and other areas where the administrative court sits—is taking cases away from London, and that is a good thing.

My next point concerns fees. The Justice Secretary said that judicial review was being increasingly used by organisations for public relations purposes, but increasing the fees will not make them use it any less. Those organisations can afford it; it is the individuals or the residents groups who will not be able to afford the fees and therefore will be denied access to justice. If we remove access to justice, we remove one of the important parts of a democracy. In my view, the Justice Secretary has not made the case for reform. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to ask the Justice Secretary what discussions he has had with those who drew up the civil procedure rules about these changes, and what representations he has had from the judiciary, lawyers and others who use the administrative court stating that there is a need for reform.

The case for reform is flawed. As Tom Bingham, the eminent judge, wrote in his excellent book, “The Rule of Law”, judges review the lawfulness of administrative action taken by others; they are the auditors of legality—no more no less. If we are to live in a democracy, we have to expect decisions to be made in cases which are not acceptable to the Executive or Parliament. We would not wish to have a judiciary that agrees with everything the Executive or Parliament does. Judicial review is one of the pillars that hold up a just society. Unforeseen consequences of legislation and the exercise of discretion can be tested in the courts through JR. We not only have great expectations but—in JR jargon—legitimate expectations that the safety valve for society that is judicial review will remain intact. In judicial review, judges exercise a constitutional power that the rule of law requires them to exercise. That is the way it should be.

May I add my voice to others in wishing everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year and in thanking the staff for all their hard work over the year? Let me also say, on this auspicious day—20/12/2012—that I hope everyone’s dreams come true.

Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)

- Hansard -

I do not intend to take up anywhere near my allocated time, Mr Deputy Speaker; instead, I hope to be punchy and pithy.

Everyone in this House will remember the catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April in 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Because of that disaster, Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline, like other charities, was set up in 1991. It works hard for the children affected by the disaster. I need to declare a small interest in the charity. In 2001, when I was chairman of Heptonstall parish council, Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline was my charity of the year, and many of my constituents in the Calder Valley, along with people from all over the nation, host those young people on recuperation holidays.

Belarus and Ukraine, where most of the charity’s work is focused, received more than 70% of the radioactive fallout from the nuclear explosion. As a result, thousands of children are still born every year with, or go on to develop, thyroid cancer, bone cancer or leukaemia. The charity does much work to help these children. It provides ongoing supplies of multivitamins and basic health care products to the children, having delivered thousands of tonnes over the last two decades. The charity helps children too sick to travel by providing chemotherapy medicines to children’s cancer hospitals in Minsk and Gomel, as well as other regions. It provides support with medicines and equipment to babies’ homes in Minsk and other orphanages around the country. When needed, the charity brings children to the UK for long-term medical care and education.

I want to speak about the charity’s work in bringing child victims of the Chernobyl disaster over to the UK for four-week recuperation breaks. More than 46,000 young children have been brought over to stay with UK host families since the breaks started in 1992. Traditionally, for the last 16 and a half years our Government have provided gratis visas for these recuperation breaks, like every other country in Europe. The breaks help to prolong those young children’s lives and give them good clean air and good living for just four weeks of their lives. The gratis visas are due to cease in March next year. The charity will have to find an additional £89 per child to bring them to the UK for four weeks’ recuperation.

The visas are currently paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from a budget of £250,000, but the actual cost is only £130,000. The money is transferred to the UK Border Agency for the service it provides. I have received a written reply from the Minister for Europe who has explained the reasons why the visas will cease. The money will apparently keep one of our smaller embassies open, it equates to full-time equivalent staff whom the FCO does not have to make redundant, and he feels that he gave the charities enough notice of the FCO’s intent when they were advised of the change back in November 2010.

I would ask my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House whether a solution can be found, because this charge, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Home Office, is just that: a charge. There is no physical product, apart from just the process. The true cost of providing the visas is much less than the budget spent on them, and given the 0.7% of GDP that we spend on international aid, the amount is so small that it is almost embarrassing that we should be cutting support for those young, dying children. May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether, rather than giving a blanket no, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will please seek a solution with the Home Office—and perhaps even the Department for International Development —to ensure that we continue to do the morally right thing and help this and other charities to prolong these young lives?

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I, like others, take this opportunity to wish you and the whole House—Members, staff and their families—a wonderful Christmas and an incredibly peaceful new year?

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your now traditional role of the Speaker’s version of Santa Claus, giving presents to the Back Benchers. I hope that next year we will see you enter into the spirit a little more, with something less sombre than your morning suit—perhaps a pair of antlers, a red nose or some such. We look forward to that with great expectation.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who uses these debates in the way they should be used by Back Benchers. He had great support in all parts of the House as he spoke. We commend him on the resilience he has shown in looking after the interests of the children from Chernobyl. In a way, that shows the value of these debates and, indeed, the Backbench Business Committee, which some colleagues who are new to the House might rather take for granted. Those of us who have been here a little longer know what a hard fought campaign it was—including on our side of the House, through those on our own Front Bench—to get the Backbench Business Committee and give Back Benchers the voice they deserve in their own legislature. I hope we will soon add the other half of the brace that was recommended by the Wright Committee, which is to have a House business committee—the promise is to do that this year—which will allow this Chamber some measure of participation in setting the business of the whole legislature, rather than leaving it entirely to the Government. I hope that colleagues will join together in progressing that over the next year.

I would like to place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for announcing yesterday that medals will be awarded not only to Bomber Command, but to the Arctic convoys. I have followed this issue for the best part of two decades. If I can be blunt, I think it was a stain on the record of the last Government that so many of us had to work so hard—and fruitlessly—and that by the time the Prime Minister announced this recognition yesterday, so many of the brave men and women who fought in the Arctic convoys, Bomber Command or elsewhere had sadly passed away. Only their families will now have the honour and admiration from all of us for the sacrifices those men and women made. I hope that the Ministry of Defence, which is notorious for its bureaucratic ways and failing to recognise the sacrifice of service people, will have learnt a lesson and will now act expeditiously where the needs of servicemen are raised by colleagues in this House, from whichever part of the House they come.

General matters

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Let me take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to wish you and all Members of the House, as well as its staff and their families, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

In April 2008, the previous Government introduced the local housing allowance as a new way of calculating housing benefit for tenants in the private sector. The allowance is paid directly to the tenant, who should pass it on to the landlord as rent. The housing allowance and direct payments to tenants allow prospective tenants to “shop around” with their allowances, but following the introduction of local housing allowances more than 41% of private landlords—an increase of 4%—are not letting to tenants who receive such allowances, mainly because of the lack of a guarantee that rents will be received. The greatest difficulty facing many landlords with local housing allowance tenants is their inability to obtain rents. Currently, when tenants are in arrears, landlords must wait for a minimum of eight weeks before they can request direct payments.

I recently attended a meeting of the Calderdale landlords association in Calder Valley. The picture that was painted was of a sector in meltdown. No fewer than 350 properties belonging to the members of the association who were present at the meeting are in danger of being withdrawn from those receiving local housing allowances, entirely owing to the lack of guarantees.

In far too many cases throughout England, tenants move in, pay the first month’s rent, and then do not pay for two months. Leaving arrears, they then move across the border to neighbouring local authority areas and repeat the process. Then, of course, they move on again. Many pay only three months’ rent in 12 months. The cost to landlords is getting out of hand, and the practice is keeping rental charges far too high. Honest, decent people who pay their rent on time are subsidising many people who do not. A landlord who contacted me recently said that in a portfolio of 15 houses, seven tenants were more than two months in arrears, and five of them had moved on owing well over £1,000 each in rent. The cost to landlords of pursuing back rents is also expensive, and landlords incurring that additional expense often have no chance of receiving any money at all. As a result, many landlords do not pursue back rents, as by doing so they would only add to their losses.

At a time when supply should be increasing to meet increasing demand and take advantage of higher rents, stock levels in the sector fell by 2.7% between the first and second quarters of the year. As a consequence, not only is supply much tighter, but rents increased at a rate of 2.3% over the same period because supply is so much lower than demand.

Other issues in the sector are causing a decline in stock levels. The taxation system provides little incentive for investment in accommodation; we should allow the private rented sector to be treated in the same way as businesses. The system is also failing to identify vulnerable people who, even under the current arrangement, should be eligible for direct payment of their local housing allowance to their landlords. Many tenants are failing to manage their finances properly, falling into rent arrears and having their tenancies terminated. The safeguarding processes that exist are failing. Many landlords are reporting that rents have not been paid this month, as some tenants are choosing to spend their housing allowance on Christmas rather than paying their rents.

The solution to the crisis that is starting to develop is quite simple. The Residential Landlords Association, Shelter and Crisis all agree on two specific points. First, their tenants—who consist overwhelmingly of claimants of local housing allowance—say that they would prefer the allowance to be paid directly to their landlords. That would help people to manage their finances, and would reduce the temptation to use the allowance to pay other debts rather than paying rent. It would also provide tenants with security so they could be sure that the rent had been paid and there was no chance of losing their home.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman’s heart-rending appeal on behalf of landlords is very interesting. Will he join me in extending similar concern to the 67,000 families in the midlands facing an increase of an average of £9 a week as the consequence of £1.8 billion being taken out of housing benefit by his Government—families who can ill afford to pay £9 a week extra?

[Craig Whittaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure he will agree that it was the previous Government who brought in the housing allowance, which is hindering the progress of the private rented sector and stopping investment in it, as I mentioned.

The rule by which the local housing allowance can be paid directly to landlords only when claimants become eight weeks in arrears should be replaced when a sum of one month’s rent falls into arrears for 14 days. That would prevent tenants in difficulties from getting further into debt. Allowances should also be paid calendar-monthly in advance, in line with normal rental payment practices.

For a system that was set up to give people their own choices, its failure is producing a system where rents are on the rise because of the shortage of housing in the sector and because of those who do not pay their rent and buck the system. That is without question increasing rents in the sector. That is not fair, it is not sustainable and it needs to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your Christmas generosity in allowing us an extra minute to speak. I wish you, all Members and those who look after us so well in the House a very happy Christmas.

Members have spoken about court closures, racing stables and winter tyres. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) talked about the wonderful food in Norfolk, and I could not let this opportunity pass without saying not only that is Norfolk food good, but that Devon food is excellent. With one’s Christmas pudding, one must have some Devonshire cream and make sure that one has some grass-fed Devonshire lamb and beef to go alongside it—perhaps a bit of turkey too.

I rise to speak about heating oil, another matter very important to rural constituencies. My constituency is 40 miles long; it starts on Exmoor and ends up in the sea at Seaton. There is a huge rural area within those boundaries, and many of the villages and hamlets there have no mains gas supply. Their only alternative to electricity for heating is oil. That is why the postcode lottery on what people pay for heating oil must stop.

During business questions last week, I made the point that during November and early December, crude oil prices went up by 17% and that the price of heating oil went up by 70%. There is no justification for that. Within rural areas, there are many old properties—some are farm houses, some are small cottages—and they are difficult to insulate with modern insulation and expensive to heat. People need more fuel to heat them, and if we lump on to that the huge increase in price, a lot of the heating allowances for poorer people just do not go very far at all.

About 2 million properties rely on heating oil; they are mostly in rural areas and 828,000 of them are in England. Recently, as I said, there has been a spike in oil prices that could add as much as £540 a year to the average family’s heating bill. The price of heating oil tends to rise gradually in the winter months, when demand is at its highest. A home owner might use anything between 2,500 to 4,000 litres of oil. Price rises during winter are unavoidable, but the price rises that we have seen cannot be justified simply by supply and demand.

[Craig Whittaker]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituents who have contacted me in the past couple of days to express the real suspicion that the supply of oil is being held back to inflate prices artificially, with the companies knowing full well that the average UK home that uses oil can store only up to 60 days’ worth? In effect, those homes have to buy oil when winter is at its worst.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Furthermore, some oil companies unscrupulously deliver oil at a very high price and hold back on deliveries under contracts that are sold at a lower price. The issue really needs to be sorted out.

That brings me neatly to my next point. Crude oil accounts for 48% of the cost of heating oil. The largest next component, accounting for 45%, includes the cost of distribution and marketing. The refining process accounts for only 7%.

The average price of a litre of heating oil in Northern Ireland, which has had some of the worst of the recent weather, is 48p per litre, or 52p in Belfast—and given that weather, the cost of delivery and getting the tankers to the houses would be among the greatest. The average price in the south of England at the moment is 80p per litre, while in the middle of England it is 68p, in Wales it is 67p and in Scotland it is 64p per litre. What justification is there for someone in the south of England having to pay nearly twice as much as people in Northern Ireland? During the same period, the price of petrol at the pumps has gone up by only 10p per litre.

I say clearly to the Business Secretary that it is time that we did something about the situation. At the moment, he is considering establishing the position of an ombudsman to consider food prices and whether supermarkets’ buying power is too great. I urge him to get on with that as quickly as he can. I do not know whether he wants to go down this route, but I suggest that having an adjudicator or ombudsman for heating oil might provide some sort of solution to the problem that I have outlined. I am not thinking of a huge bureaucracy but of somebody people could contact to ask why their heating oil is so expensive in their parts of the country. Those companies would have to justify what they are actually charging. At the moment, there is misery being made out of cold weather and some people have no source of heating other than oil fires, Agas and boilers.

As I said, many houses are difficult to heat and insulate, and people are having to pay an extra price before Christmas. The Government cannot just stand by on this matter. All hon. Members probably believe in some form of market forces, but in this case those forces are being used to drive up the cost of fuel unjustifiably. As I have said, weather conditions alone cannot justify what is happening because Northern Ireland has had some of the worst weather in this period, yet it has some of the cheapest fuel. We must ensure that constituents who use oil to heat their houses, wherever they live, pay a fair price for that fuel and are not held to ransom by either the oil companies or those who deliver the oil to houses.

Business of the House

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Happily, I have no responsibility whatsoever for what happens in the 1922 committee and that is no doubt a situation that will continue. The important issue is the setting up of the Select Committees, including the European Scrutiny Committee, and I understand the urgency of that. I was very pleased that the motion was passed by the House last night to make the small amendments to the number of members on Committees. That means that the Committee of Selection can now proceed in good order to make appointments to Committees. We should have all the Committees of the House up and running as soon as possible.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

May I ask a question in a similar vein to the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) for a debate on how our consulates aid and advise our residents abroad in extreme circumstances? I am thinking in particular about the Calder Valley resident who died last week, Sarah Royle, and her family. She fell off a balcony watching the England match in the World cup. Sarah lost her parents at a very early age and her two remaining sisters, who are of limited means, are being asked to sign an indemnity against the costs of bringing the body home and paying the bills, because the insurance company believes that she might have been drinking at the time.

[Mr Speaker]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is seeking either a statement or a debate on the matter.