Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

Debate between David Mowat and Michael Fallon

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

As I understand it—I am open to correction—all the detainees were revealed to have been insurgents. One of the things that the inquiry has thrown up is the distinction between general interrogation and what is called tactical questioning, where people need very quickly to get as much information as they can in order to save lives or to prevent further bloodshed on the battlefield. It is that distinction that Sir Thayne discusses when he comes to the various procedures. As I understand it, in terms of the very specific identification on that day, it did not take place.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

We are the only country in the world that pays legal aid to sue our own Army. We then pay millions to defend our Army in those cases. Public Interest Lawyers has made over £1 million a year from such cases in each of the past four years. Is there a realistic opportunity for us to get some of that money back? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if there is, he will go after it as best he can?

[Michael Fallon]

We all regret the amount of time and the cost of this inquiry, but I am still proud to live in a country where these things can be fully investigated. It has taken far too long and cost far too much money, but I would rather the truth came out, however painful it has been. On the recovery of costs, as I said, we are looking at whether some of the costs involved in the earlier judicial review claim can now be recouped.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mowat and Michael Fallon

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Let me take the opportunity absolutely to reinforce the point the hon. Lady makes. UK warships are built only in UK yards. I do not think I can make the position on the Clyde any clearer, and I hope she will take some reassurance from that. I am aware of what she says about the timetable and we are addressing that. I hope that we can make some early decisions, at least on some of the longer lead items that feed into the Type 26 programme, in the very near future.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T4. We are the only country in the world to pay legal aid to foreign nationals to sue our own soldiers. The MOD spends many millions more defending these claims. Is there anything more that the Secretary of State can do to divert these millions of pounds away from the legal profession on to the equipment budget?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mowat and Michael Fallon

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I am happy to meet that trade association to follow up its specific concerns. The hon. Gentleman is right that business needs uniform and proportionate enforcement, and we are looking to deliver that through improved guidance with the relevant bodies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to support energy-intensive industries.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

In the Budget the Government announced a package of support of £500 million a year for energy-intensive industries. From 2016, we will introduce compensation for the costs of the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff. We will also be extending to 2019 the compensation scheme for the emissions trading scheme and the carbon price floor. Together with amendments to the carbon price floor, these changes will be worth around £7 billion to businesses in Britain.

[David Mowat]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that several of our EU competitors are increasingly cross-subsidising industrial use of electricity, creating a difficult landscape for our energy-intensive industries. A recent example of the impact of this is BOAL Aluminium, an aluminium processor which was going to invest £2 million in the UK but has moved that, with all the associated jobs, to Belgium, where energy costs 30% less. Is there more we can do to prevent carbon leakage of that type?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing representatives of the aluminium industry to see me in the Department. It is important that we in Britain do not lose out on such investment. We have already paid out some £30 million of compensation to 53 of the most electricity-intensive companies and we will continue to press for further reform in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mowat and Michael Fallon

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s predecessor set out to this House the circumstances in which support would be offered for the new nuclear technology we are negotiating on with EDF in respect of Hinkley C. When we conclude those negotiations—which I hope we will do very shortly—we will, of course, report the details of the investment contract to the House. I also note that the party of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is now a supporter of nuclear power.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Minister may be aware that when Hinkley Point C comes onstream it will produce as much electricity in a year as every single onshore and offshore wind turbine we currently have. Given that, will he assure the House that there will not be a further 10-year delay in respect of future nuclear stations?

[Michael Fallon]

Nuclear power is a very important part of our energy mix and of our future energy security, which makes it all the more criminal that nothing was done for the long, long period of the Labour Government to replace the nuclear stations that are coming offline in the late 2020s and 2030s.

Energy Bill

Debate between David Mowat and Michael Fallon

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Minister has referred several times in the last few minutes to CCS technology. What is his core estimate of that being deployable on a commercial basis in the UK?

[Michael Fallon]

I am not able at the moment to give my hon. Friend a precise timetable. Last year, we had a competition, as he will recall, for CCS. We selected the two principal bids and we are continuing to negotiate, but as soon as I have more news on that, I will ensure that he is one of the first to hear.

I must thank the hon. Member for Brent North for amendment 149. He will see that the small error has already been corrected in the version of the Bill that was introduced to the House on 9 May.

My hon. Friends the Members for Daventry and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) have tabled a number of amendments to clause 41 covering the certificate purchase scheme, which is designed to replace the renewables obligation for the last 10 years of its existence. First, let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney that the provisions he seeks to remove through amendments 153, 154 and 157 to 159 simply replicate legislation that exists under the renewables obligation. Caps have been set before, such as for bioliquids; exemptions already exist for very small suppliers; and costs of administering the scheme are already recovered from the RO buy-out funds. The powers he wants to remove through amendment 159 would, for example, be needed to revoke any incorrectly issued certificates. These provisions therefore ensure the continued effective operation of the scheme.

On amendments 155 and 156, requiring the immediate recovery of shortfalls in the levy from suppliers would be unnecessarily prescriptive. That may not be necessary if, for instance, the shortfall is very small and can be made up in the next round of regular levy payments.

Amendments 160, 161, 167 and 168 would either remove our ability to change future support levels for the scheme, or add further validation requirements on the underpinning evidence for a change. Although the Government do not intend to make banding changes under the certificate purchase scheme, I would not want to remove our ability to do so. As we have seen, where there is compelling new evidence to change support levels, such as to protect consumers, it is important that the Government can act, and these provisions are important as they set out the controls on any such change.

On the underpinning evidence, we already take a rigorous approach to the assessment of costs and income in banding reviews under the renewables obligation. I can assure the House that we would do so again in any review of support levels under the certificate purchase scheme.

Let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that, in relation to amendment 169, consumer costs will always be an important consideration in banding reviews. New section 32V(4)(e) in clause 41 makes specific provision for that.

That brings me to the last but most important issue in this group: the costs and benefits of electricity market reform to consumers. A number of amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry, for Waveney, for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and we must thank the last two of them for providing such excellent chairmanship of the Bill Committee.

First and foremost, let me be clear that electricity market reform—EMR—is good for the consumer. Gas prices are rising and are projected to carry on rising. We need to move to a more diverse energy mix, which breaks our dependency on both gas and fossil fuel generation. The contract for difference provides protection for consumers by ensuring that generators pay back when the market price goes over the strike price, and the price certainty it brings will reduce the cost of financing new power stations, and thus reduce costs to the consumer. EMR also serves the public interest by reducing carbon emissions and ensuring everyone can benefit from reliable electricity supplies. These are important matters, which is why I would not want to accept amendment 162 and make them subordinate matters when the Secretary of State is exercising functions under part 2 of the Bill.

On amendment 151, I would not expect use of the liquidity powers in clause 38 to increase costs for consumers over the lifetime of any intervention. The purpose of these powers is to protect consumers by driving competition and reducing prices. A positive outcome for consumers must be proven before action is taken, and that would be shown through an impact assessment, which would be published when consulting on any proposed use of these powers. On amendment 152, contracts for difference can only be for the purpose of encouraging low-carbon generation, so that change is not necessary.

Both today and tomorrow, we need to work in the best interests of consumers and ensure that energy is cheaper as well as greener. I hope that all Members on both sides of the House can see that EMR represents the cheapest way of securing a diverse, low-carbon and reliable energy mix.

I want finally to turn to the amendments involving tariffs and to speak to the relatively minor Government amendments in that group before addressing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Angus. In line with the Prime Minister’s crucial commitment to ensure that people are on the cheapest tariff for their preferences, Government amendments 119 to 133 will align the powers in clause 121 more closely with Ofgem’s retail market review proposals. Government amendments 119, 120, 122 and 123 further clarify that those powers cannot be used for the purpose of imposing price controls by limiting the powers of the Secretary of State to make provisions under clause 121 only to the list set out in subsection (3).

In line with Ofgem’s retail market review proposals, Government amendments 125, 127, 128 and 131 will restrict the power to move customers from one tariff to another only to those customers on tariffs closed to new joiners. Government amendment 126 ensures that suppliers will have at least one core tariff slot that is not prescribed. Government amendment 130 clarifies that the power to prescribe that a supplier offers fixed or variable rate tariffs does not equate to setting the price or term for the tariff. Finally, Government amendments 121, 124, 129, 132 and 133 reword a number of the definitions to ensure that the powers can be exercised in the context of existing requirements placed on suppliers as a condition of their supply licence.

Amendments 21 and 22 were tabled by the hon. Member for Angus and address concerns he raised in Committee. Amendment 21 relates to the proposed Secretary of State power set out in clause 121 to move consumers off poor-value dead tariffs. His amendment would leave the only basis on which people can be moved off poor-value dead tariffs as an opt-out for consumers. Moving customers off such tariffs is a key part of meeting the Prime Minister’s commitment on energy bills. I would like to reassure hon. Members that in the event that Ofgem’s reforms are unduly delayed, we fully intend to make use of the opt-out approach rather than an opt-in. As a result of Ofgem’s review, however, it could become clear that there are certain circumstances in which some consumers could be actively disadvantaged by an opt-out approach, so we consider it prudent to retain the option to pursue an opt-in approach if necessary. Consumers could be disadvantaged should it, for example, transpire that as a result of market changes they would actually be better off staying on specific closed tariffs or that taking an opt-out option means they face contractual difficulties, such as a breach of contract.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mowat and Michael Fallon

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The best way that the hon. Lady can help that company is to support our proposals to unlock new housing, particularly affordable housing, and new infrastructure as set out in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, which unfortunately the Labour party voted against on Monday night.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Earlier the Secretary of State gave us an update on the good progress we are making on the green investment bank. Can he confirm, however, that EU state approval specifically excludes the nuclear supply chain, which is a major low-carbon industry, and that organisations such as Sheffield Forgemasters will be excluded if we do not appeal that?