Energy Bill

Debate between Graham Stringer and Chris Heaton-Harris

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I will certainly obey your request, Madam Deputy Speaker, and skate through what I have to say. I should declare an interest at the very beginning, because I run a campaign outside the House. It is a not-for-profit company and I do not take a salary or any expenses, but I declare an interest, in the spirit of the time and in the hope that others pushing amendments may do exactly the same later.

I was pleased to hear the Minister address many of the concerns that I have raised in my amendments. I did not bang on about the thing that most would have expected me to bang on about in my amendments. I believe that the Minister agreed with one of them, and just wanted to check; I am slightly concerned that that might be the case. Alas, it was not the amendment that I really wanted him to agree with—amendment 169, which concerns the costs to consumers of the outcomes of the Bill.

The motivation of my amendments was simple: to include a reference to the consumer interest and force the Secretary of State and the Government to have regard to that, and to require much greater transparency about the contracts created and the costs imposed by the Energy Bill. We all know that the Bill came out of the Government’s electricity market reform process, which began in 2010 and had three elements. The first is the carbon price floor, which has been introduced by the Finance Act 2013 and sets out a path for a minimum carbon price in the UK from the fiscal year 2013-14 from £16 per tonne to £30 by 2020.

There is a new renewable and nuclear subsidy mechanism. The Government will replace the existing regime with a contract for difference mechanism. This new mechanism will very largely transfer the price risk from the developer to the consumer by guaranteeing an achieved power sale price for each power station covered. Unlike the renewables obligation, the new contract for difference mechanism will also provide subsidy support to the developer of new nuclear, about which I know other Members have concerns.

Another strand is that the Government will create a capacity market that will seek to ensure the retention of sufficient existing generation capacity and the building of new capacity. The design of the capacity market is still ongoing, so the exact nature of the market in the future is unclear, and we do not know when it is planned to hold the first capacity auction. I believe that it will potentially be in 2014 for delivery in 2018. Then there are the bits about emission performance standards to talk about.

Realistically, though, there is an overall problem with the Bill, which was highlighted by the Opposition’s general agreement. It is a kind of renationalisation of the power sector—very, very nearly. To deliver their policy goals the Government require utility companies and third-party investors to build assets that are fundamentally not economic, often in technologies that are far from robust or mature. The Government have taken upon themselves the responsibility of deciding which generation technologies are bad, such as coal and unabated gas, and which are good, such as hydro or nuclear or wind perhaps. They have also decided the pace of change, that coal should largely be removed from the power matrix by 2024, and that unabated gas should operate only at peak from 2027. They have decided which future technologies should or should not be developed and are pushing forward with a leap of faith on as yet completely unproven technologies, as we have heard before, including carbon capture and storage.

The Bill will take Government intervention up yet another level. Under the powers granted by the Bill, the Department of Energy and Climate Change will allocate contracts for difference to developers in those technologies and at those locations that DECC favours. It will set the strike price and so determine the revenue of the asset, what the consumer pays and the returns on investment. It is very much a centralising measure. I am not convinced that it gives the opportunities for new sources that bubble up, as we might perhaps say in this case.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

We might have an ideological difference if the Bill was actually nationalising the energy industry, but it is not; it is doing something far worse. It is guaranteeing profits for parts of the energy industry that have been chosen from a limited intellectual base. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by picking so-called winners, which may be losers, the Bill is squeezing out money that could have been spent on research for better newer technologies?

Draft European Union Budget

Debate between Graham Stringer and Chris Heaton-Harris

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

It is not often that I would commend anything to do with a politician from the UK Independence party. However, if we look at the front page of the Financial Times from 1 August 2002, we see sitting beside Marta Andreasen at the press conference one of the MEPs for the East Midlands, who is now the MP for Daventry. She was the first person to hold the role of chief accountant of the European Commission who had an accountancy qualification. I am very keen that her expertise is shared. I have seen the DVD and it is well worth looking at.

The Minister set out some obstacles to the reform of the budget, and they are great. When there are big vested interests, with big countries getting way more money out than they will ever put in, there is no chance of reducing the budget under qualified majority voting. As I have tried to explain, we are one of the biggest net contributors, and we will continue to be so way into the future. However, we will always be outvoted on budgetary matters under qualified majority voting, because more countries gain from our expenditure than pay themselves.

Blocs exist to protect certain things. There is the bloc of net gainers, but France, which is a net contributor, exists in another bloc to protect one of the big areas of spending: the common agricultural policy. It does not want any major changes to the CAP, because that is how it diminishes its net payments to the EU. With such vested interests built in, reform of the European budget is much easier said that done, as the Opposition prove in their amendment.

Another problem with the EU budget is that its own auditors do not sign it off. This is the 17th consecutive year in which the European Court of Auditors, having checked the legality of EU spending, has refused to give it what is called a positive statement of assurance. Essentially, it has refused to sign off the accounts. As the Financial Secretary said, we must consider that alongside the fact that the European Commission constantly asks for much more money to spend but then cannot spend it properly. Until recently, it was running up massive surpluses in its own accounts.

There are also aberrations that people do not like. The latest is that we are told that EU chiefs are splashing out on a new £350 million headquarters, at a time when everybody else is having to cut their budgets. That new headquarters, by the way, is in Luxembourg, where MEPs no longer go because they are based in Brussels and Strasbourg. There is obviously too much money in the system. The case for reform is therefore greater now than it has ever been.

Although the European Council will not formally adopt its position on the European Commission’s proposed EU budget for 2013 until 26 July, member states’ ambassadors to the EU reached a deal on it yesterday, as the Financial Secretary mentioned. The Commission has proposed an overall 6.8% increase in payment appropriations compared with 2012, which amounts to about £7.2 billion—a decent sum. As he said, the member states’ position agreed yesterday means a £2.9 billion increase in payments. That is an increase of 2.79%, which can be compared with the EU inflation rate of 1.9%.

The Financial Secretary and I know that the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden all oppose the deal and will vote against it at the Council on 26 July. However, if we are the only three states to do so, the budget will be adopted by a qualified majority of countries in the blocs that I outlined, which want to receive more than they put in. If the estimated UK gross contribution of 11.3% to the 2012 EU budget were replicated, under yesterday’s deal the UK would pay about £12.2 billion gross into the budget next year.

Essentially, we are just about to increase the EU budget, and our part of that increase is £330 million. That would pay a year’s basic salary to 18,500 Army privates, the average basic salary to 10,500 NHS-qualified nurses, or a year’s basic salary to 12,500 police constables.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is providing some extraordinarily insightful and useful information about the absurdities of the EU. When the Financial Secretary was asked to be a bit tougher, he made great play of always having to obey the law. We are law makers, so of course we agree, but can the hon. Gentleman think of any organisation in the UK that would hand over £100, let alone £12 billion, to an organisation that cannot get its accounts audited?

European Union Bill

Debate between Graham Stringer and Chris Heaton-Harris

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Please do not steal my thunder for later. I am aware that Madam Deputy Speaker might rule me out of order, so to stay well in order, I shall detail how the peers at the other end of the corridor have taken away referendums from the people on matters of EU taxation.

But hold on, let us not talk about Members of the House of Lords. It was difficult to understand from the comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) whether Labour supported the British people having a referendum on an EU tax. We know that the peers do not, because they voted on that matter, but we do not know whether Labour Members would troop through the Lobby in favour of that proposal if we were to get into a game of constitutional ping-pong with the Lords this evening. What about foreign policy? That referendum has been taken away from the British people. Will Labour Members support us in the Lobby on that question? What about the questions on the abolition of vetoes, the European public prosecutor’s office, the transfer of power in employment law, operational defence policy or the introduction of a carbon tax?

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is listing a lot of important subjects. Quite frankly, I would support an EU referendum on paper clips, because, whatever the referendum was about, the British people would take the question to be one of whether or not they were in favour of the European Union. Everyone would understand that. I therefore support more items being placed in the Bill on which we would be allowed to have a referendum. What the British people want is a referendum on whether we should be in or out.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

If only the hon. Gentleman’s Front Bench were as wise as he is. I know that he has been campaigning on this issue for a long time, and I thank him for his contribution.

If only those on the hon. Gentleman’s Front Bench could come clean and tell the British what they actually believe on these matters. Do they trust the British people enough to give them a vote on these matters? We are not sure, because up at the other end of the building, where the red Benches are, Labour Members—including Front Benchers—have trooped into the wrong Lobby on these matters on too many occasions. We would very much like to know where Labour Members stand on this. This is the fog of war as far as they are concerned. They want to rattle a few cages and see what comes out, but they certainly do not want to get caught stating any policy. However, these matters are fundamental to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and it would have been good to hear something definite from the hon. Member for Caerphilly tonight. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) will help us out later.