Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want to make it clear at this stage that my complaint is not with the deal at large. There are some concerns over the details of the bonus element of the pension, whereby disappointing investment returns could see bonuses lost over time and members’ pensions worse off by around 30% in real terms—I intend to press the Minister on that issue later—but like the trustees I acknowledge that elements of the deal are beneficial.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate. Just to echo her comments, the nation owes a debt of honour to the miners and mining communities for providing the fuel that powered a nation. Many miners died prematurely, including my own father in his 50s and my grandfather in his early 50s. What will happen to the surplus when the last of the miners and their beneficiaries have passed away? Where will that surplus go, and is that driving the Government’s actions?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I am sure the Minister has heard it and will respond in due course.

The guarantee has provided a safeguard that has allowed the trustees to follow higher-risk, and subsequently higher-value, investments that have proved lucrative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady has made a valid point but, as she has also said, if the scheme had been reviewed at that point, many more thousands of people would have received a higher pension. The decision not to conduct a review was made partly because of the volatility that is inherent in a scheme for which the Government act as guarantor, and partly because, notwithstanding the idea that this is cash that sits in the Government’s coffers, the Government have no money of their own. In many instances, the money that has come into the scheme has been spent directly in the coalfield communities. We have spent more than £1 billion —[Interruption.] Hang on. We have spent more than £1 billion of Government money in the coalfield communities over the last 20 years, and we have committed an additional £70 million since 2010. The point is that, if money comes to the Government, it is part of the Government’s general receipts and can then be recycled. That money has contributed to the benefits that many other pensioners have received.

[Grahame Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Claire Perry]

Let me make some progress. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

Yes, that is absolutely correct. I know that my hon. Friend takes an interest in this, so I wish to emphasise that we recognise the value of community energy, which has benefited in many cases from this scheme. If people have the chance to respond to the consultation emphasising the value of that, it would be much appreciated.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to support people in insecure work.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to support people in insecure work.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Britain has a very strong record in this area, with the highest level of employment in our history, combined with some of the strongest rights for workers in Europe. Last month, I announced new measures to counter discrimination at work against women returning from maternity leave, and we are one of the first countries in Europe so to do.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but may I remind him that unemployment in my constituency is up by almost 1,000 on the same period last year, to 2,860? May I also tell him that a fire at Country Style Foods in Peterlee in my constituency has left a number of people looking for work, including one temporary worker employed through an agency? She had worked for the same company for seven years on a zero-hours contract, but a short break in her employment has stopped her accessing contributions-based benefits. In most zero-hours contracts, this “flexibility” is illusory. When would he consider that zero-hours contracts are inappropriate?

Nissan in Sunderland

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I do not quite understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I think that she might be referring to the fact that we should not regard the period until 28 March as the time available to us to negotiate. Manufacturers place orders for components with suppliers and they are doing so now. They have to buy components now and these decisions are being taken at the moment. Manufacturers that are exporting to the far east, for example, have to make decisions about what they are going to ship during the weeks ahead. We therefore do not have the luxury of waiting until 28 March; we need to conclude this matter very quickly.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has some historical connections with my region, so he will be aware that we have lost the coalmining industry, the steelworks and the shipyards. I hope that he is also acutely aware of how vital the car industry and the supply chain are not just to Sunderland, but to the whole region. Given that many thousands of my constituents work in the supply chain and directly at Easington, has the Minister considered introducing some incentives to drive the take-up of all-electric vehicles also manufactured by Nissan on Wearside, such as a car scrappage scheme? That would help to reduce emissions and promote employment in my constituency and in the region.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is no one in this House more familiar with the importance of the car industry across the country and in the north-east. Within 10 days of having been appointed Business Secretary, I flew to Japan to meet the chief executives not just of Nissan, but of the other investors. I have always had a clear understanding of their requirements regarding future prosperity, and I have always applied that. If he looks at the automotive sector deal that I negotiated with the whole industry and at the investment that we have made in the Faraday challenge, he will see that we are working well and closely with the industry to do what it says is necessary to drive the take-up and innovation in the sector that will secure the future of the motor industry in the north-east and right across the country.

Smart Meters Bill (Sixth sitting)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Harrington]

Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak had to do with the general costs passed on to customers in the electricity market, a small part of which involve the smart meters that we are discussing. The justification for smart meters, as far as I am concerned, is ultimately to give customers a control over their electricity bills that they do not have now. Now they have one choice, which is to move. It is a good choice, and one that I have exercised myself, but compared with what they will get out of smart meters, it is crude.

I am not making light of the costs charged—this amendment is not about the general costs—but I hope that they will be small fry compared with the huge savings that they will create over the years, although the costs of installation have unquestionably gone up; I will not pretend that they have not.

I will try to deal with the amendment generally. I made a note of the hon. Gentleman’s questions while he was speaking, as you would expect me to do, Mrs Gillan. He asked about the fines that can be levied. I point out that the fines are levied by Ofgem rather than by the Department via the Secretary of State. By the way, I was most impressed and surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman quote Centrica and its complaints as an example to all of us. Apparently, it did not want to bear the costs of smart meters or charge its customers for them; it wanted to pass them on to the general taxpayer.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Minister’s defence is that lots of the powers rest with the regulator, Ofgem. However, the explanatory notes say that the Energy Act 2008 and later Acts have given the Secretary of State powers to veto any proposals by Ofgem to consent to a number of things, including the transfer of the DCC licence, which we discussed earlier. He already has extensive reserved powers.

[Richard Harrington]

To continue with the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak: if British Gas was fined 10% of its turnover, in theory that would be passed on to its consumers. In practice, of course, that would make it so uncompetitive that all its consumers would move somewhere else. The purpose of these measures is not the fines; it is all the things that happen before the fines to make suppliers comply.

Technically, the hon. Gentleman’s point is correct: in theory, all costs go on to consumers, just as in general Government finances all Government expenditure goes on to the taxpayer. I do not think the point is that relevant, but I cannot disagree with what he said other than to say that the fines are not a tool for compliance; they are the ultimate response.

It is true that Ofgem administers the programme and the legal requirements are on it to take all reasonable steps to ensure that households and small businesses have smart meters. The fine is for Ofgem to decide. I remind the hon. Gentleman, before I move to the substance of the amendment, that we have to consider the net benefits as well as the costs. Every single consumer who has a smart meter is making savings on their bill from day one, so experience shows. The real prizes are for the future: the information the meter gives and the change in behavioural habits that happens surely make this worthwhile.

It is not appropriate or feasible to change the policy to move the cost on to the general taxpayer, but it is for us to monitor the situation carefully. With volume, the cost will go down. Compared with many other costs in the generation and supply of gas and electricity, the smart meter bill is quite small given the price of the physical SMETS 2 meter, which, as we have discussed in previous sessions of the Committee, is lower than the SMETS 1 meter’s, and given the cost of the installation and administration that goes with it, which is the same for SMETS 1 and SMETS 2.

I return to the specifics of the amendment. The Bill allows us to reclaim the administration costs that effectively come from the end user via the companies—that is true. It allows the Secretary of State to make such modifications to the licence conditions, where he considers it appropriate to do so, in connection with the special administration regime. The key point is that the clause requires the Secretary of State to consult affected licensees and such other persons as he considers appropriate prior to making modifications to licences. The licence modifications envisaged under this power have been drafted and a version has already been made available along with the explanatory notes to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to the public via the parliament.uk website.

The licence conditions try to allow the administration costs to be recouped from the industry insofar as there is a shortfall in the property available for meeting the costs. I accept that, in any business, recouping something from the industry involves recouping it from the customer in the end, which is the point I conceded to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. In the crudest sense, that is true of purchasing anything: the cost of the manufacturer, importer or distributor in any form of good or service is met in the end price. That is bad unless consumers have the choice and the ability to easily switch to a supplier that does not have that incumbence, as is the case here.

I have always envisaged that when we formally consult on those modifications in due course, the consultation will be published. If it is helpful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, I am happy to provide him and everyone else with an undertaking that the consultation will be publicly available and addressed to the public, as well as to the other consultees involved. On the basis of that undertaking, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. The important part of the amendment is valid. Again, it is “what if”, and we have to consider that. I have tried to assess those points. The new clause would give the Secretary of State a non-time-limited power to impose conditions on future smart meter communication licences as appropriate, which could include restricting future licensees to being British-owned companies.

The licences that are valid at the moment were granted to Smart DCC Ltd in 2013 for a period of 12 years, which is why 2025 has been mentioned quite a few times. That would be the earliest time at which they could be re-tendered. It is the intention that any competition to grant a new smart meter communication licence carried out after November 2018 would be conducted by Ofgem, the first one being appointed by the Secretary of State. That reflects our policy of transferring responsibility from the Government to the smart metering programme, from the Government to the regulator, and recognising that smart metering will eventually become business as usual for the energy industry after this period.

[Grahame Morris]

I know that the Minister is the soul of reasonableness, but is the issue not so much about the regulator? The regulator’s principal task is the interest of the consumer. Are there not political considerations if a foreign-owned company becomes the regulator? There is an elephant in the room that no one is mentioning, but that is at the back of everyone’s mind. It would surely be prudent to take steps to ensure that the Secretary of State or the Minister has reserve powers to prevent that from happening, given the sensitive and pervasive nature of the data involved.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. If he will be patient with me for a few minutes, his good constituents in Easington will, I hope, be reassured by what I am about to say about foreign ownership.

The shadow Minister’s point was not directly about nationalising the DCC but about whether this kind of organisation would be better off as a not-for-profit publicly owned organisation. That, obviously, was not the Government’s policy. The Government’s policy is to favour competition while protecting the interests of the consumer.

For those less familiar with the details of the licence than I am and the shadow Minister is—he knows it intimately—I should say that the licence’s clear objective is to foster the competitive supply of energy. As a natural monopoly, which is what it is—that is what it would be, whether state owned or privately owned—the price is regulated by Ofgem, so that the costs flowing to consumers are controlled. I felt it worth while to make that point.

The new clause seeks to ensure that the process for awarding the next licence is future-proofed and that the interests of consumers, industry and the country as a whole are protected, irrespective of who is responsible for running the future licensing competition, be it Capita, another company or a not-for-profit organisation.

I would like to highlight two areas. This, I hope, is the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Easington. On the critical national infrastructure point, which this is part of, the shadow Minister mentioned the strategic value—not in money terms but foreign power terms—of this database on all the millions of people who will hopefully have these meters. The Government take the issue seriously.

Under the Enterprise Act 2002, Ministers have the ability to intervene in mergers and takeovers that give rise to public interest concerns, including those relating to national security. That means the Government can ensure that any national security issue arising from mergers or takeovers is correctly investigated and that mitigating measures are put in place.

Our review of the existing regime has highlighted that it needs to be updated to take into account the changing structure and size of companies and the sophistication of this kind of corporate movement, which is why the Government are looking again at how best to scrutinise the ownership of our important infrastructure and have committed to a White Paper next year as the next step in our strategic reforms. That cuts across the new clause.

We recently published a Green Paper review in this area. The proposed reforms have a particular focus on ensuring adequate scrutiny of whether significant foreign investment in our most critical business, which this would be, raises any national security concerns. Those businesses are, by definition, essential to our country and society, and clearly a company or entity carrying out this DCC operation would be, because of the significant data points mentioned.

The aim of the proposed reforms in this area will be to provide Government with the ability to act in circumstances where security concerns are raised. In that context, the Government seek to strike the right balance between protecting national security, having general competition and investment, and being an open and liberal international trading partner, which has worked very well. It is a balance, and the security side is very important.

As far as the EU exit point is concerned, notwithstanding the proposal outlined in the Green Paper, the UK takes its international obligations seriously. We need to ensure that any ownership restrictions are lawful, under not only retained EU law but future trade agreements with countries across the world. We all know that this precise form of agreement between the UK and the EU will be subject to negotiations. It is stating the obvious, but the Government are looking at all possible options. It would therefore not be appropriate at this stage to introduce provisions that may contradict or conflict with the Government’s approach to foreign investment. I hope the hon. Gentleman finds my explanation reassuring and will withdraw the amendment.

Smart Meters Bill (Fourth sitting)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 23rd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify that point on the SMETS 2 meters for my benefit and that of the Committee? The key issue that was raised originally with the witnesses was interoperability. Obviously, that problem is being solved by the SMETS 2 meters, so theoretically it is possible to solve the problem of interoperability. Will the SMETS 1 generation of smart meters require a different methodology to solve that problem in order to recalibrate them to give them that interoperability functionality—if that makes sense?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman makes a lot of sense, but not in a technical way. I cannot answer him in a technical way, other than to say that my understanding is that the software is remotely operated—in our day we might have called it via the lines—through the air to the meter, so it is not a question of people coming out to revisit them to make them nearly as good as SMETS 2s. The SIM card on the dumb ones is reactivated remotely.

One of the good points about SMETS 2s is that they allow energy suppliers to roll out smart meters to premises that just have gas customers. They allow distribution network operators to view maximum electricity demand for a premises in order to plan their network investments. There are a number of specialist types of smart meters, for example, polyphase meters for large electricity users, and smart meters that can be used to replace traditional Economy 7 and 10 teleswitches, which we may have come across in our constituencies, and they can only be SMETS 2. But when upgraded—if I may call it that—with the DCC software, SMETS 1s do most of the smart things that SMETS 2s do. It is just how things move on. We must accept the fact that the foundation stage of the programme was based on SMETS 1, which was infinitely better than the previous option of different companies manufacturing different types of meters for their own customers, perfectly properly, with the technology that there was. This system has replaced that anarchy—although it was legal anarchy—in terms of national organisation.

I accept the point about timing, but the foundation stage was always intended to be different from the main installation phase. We have to see this transition from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2, because it is the latest technology and we want as many people as possible to have it. I feel it is fair to say that the foundation stage has provided real benefits. We are seeing savings. Mr Bullen, in particular, spoke about his 600,000 prepayment customers with the key system, which is very old fashioned and difficult for elderly people and vulnerable people. Anyone can recognise objectively that that has been a very good thing; had we waited for SMETS 2 to be developed, those people would not have had the benefit of smart meters. It is fair to say, like with any new technology, that we want to see the industry move from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2 as soon as possible, for the reasons I have explained.

The witness from the supplier company, Secure Meters Ltd, was basically arguing very much for SMETS 1, presumably because that company is a big supplier of SMETS 1 meters. I do not mean that in any sarcastic or improper way; that is what the company does. It was said very clearly that at the moment 250 SMETS 2 meters have been connected. I hope that in the two days since then, it is a lot more than that, but it is a small number. [Interruption.] Well, at least 251, if I may say so to the shadow Minister. Anyway, they are being installed.

Smart Meters Bill (Third sitting)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 23rd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Steve McCabe]

As I said at the outset, the purpose of the amendment is to probe the Minister to explain what has happened so far and why he is so confident that in the future he will be able to stick to deadlines that have not been kept to so far. We could simply settle on the date of 2023 as currently specified in the Bill, but it would be remiss of us both as constituency Members of Parliament and legislators to let that go through without being clear about what we have voted for and what the likely implications are. Hence I suggest we look at the date.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

These are important questions. I have received representations from a number of organisations, including National Energy Action, which points out that part of the rationale behind the original timetable was a cost-benefit analysis. It is concerned that if we were to delay roll-out as suggested, and as the Minister is advocating, the benefits to be enjoyed by consumers—particularly hard-pressed consumers on low incomes—would be delayed. Whatever the arguments on supply, there is a cost to consumers. We need to consider that carefully and, as some of the witnesses argued, whether we need another cost-benefit analysis, or whether that would delay the process even further.

[Steve McCabe]

There is a new clause to be considered later that would provide for a fresh cost-benefit analysis, partly on the basis that with the most recent one there was a significant downward revision of the benefits identified. Clearly, to let the programme trundle on, without any idea of the costs and benefits, might mean that we are doing constituents and customers a severe disservice.

As I was saying, the roll-out has reached the stage of about 15% coverage, with three years to go. The Government are on record as saying, only last month, that nearly 350,000 meters are being installed each month; but to reach 100% coverage by 2020 more than 40,000 meters a day need to be installed. That is a 70% increase in the installation rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Gapes. Of course, the amendments are about restricting the date.

Interestingly, not one expert witness we heard from gave a clear reason why it is essential to agree a date of 1 November 2023. What I really want to know is, what is so important about that date, given that 2020 is the key year for the project? Is it arbitrary or pragmatic? It just happens to be five years in the future, and it might reasonably be expected that a great many of those currently connected with the delivery of this programme will have moved on to other things after that time—they might not be quite as culpable or responsible as they would be if the date were a bit closer. Can the Minister offer any additional insight about why he chose that specific time?

I am pursuing this matter because it is my contention that the project is littered with set-backs. I am conscious that the Minister inherited this brief recently, and I certainly do not hold him responsible for what has happened to date. None the less, the main national roll-out was initially intended to begin in 2014 and be complete by 2019. In 2013, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), announced that he was putting the start date back to 2015 and the completion date back to 2020. He said:

“The consistent message was that more time was needed if the mass roll-out was to get off to the best possible start and ensure a quality experience for consumers.”

Well, he gave them that extra time, and here we are with a Bill that says, “Give us more time again.” That is the situation we have arrived at.

It is probably fair to say that the industry, especially the suppliers but also the middle men—the asset providers, to whom I am not quite so well disposed—wants certainty, and I am not at all convinced that the 2023 date provides that. It simply extends the completion date. Surely the Minister can see that it makes no sense to insist on a target that nobody believes in and simultaneously create a provision in the Bill that allows it to be extended beyond 2020. It is tantamount to saying, “Don’t worry—we are not really serious.”

[Grahame Morris]

The arguments for extending the roll-out period are contentious. I refer my hon. Friend and the Committee to the evidence that Mr Derek Lickorish from Secure Meters gave when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton asked that question. Mr Lickorish identified two impediments: one technical and one commercial. He argued that the 2020 date was achievable, and said:

“I think that Ofgem ought to be able to bring the people round the table who can solve these”

commercial and technical

“issues. I do not think they are particularly visible at the moment.”––[Official Report, Smart Meters Public Bill Committee, 21 November 2017; c. 37, Q68.]

So there are mixed opinions about the feasibility of the benefits of extending the period. The Committee needs to be convinced of the benefits of allowing a longer roll-out period, because the experts who presented evidence to the Committee were not absolutely clear and of one mind.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful for that. That is exactly the point I have been endeavouring to establish. I cannot see how the Minister can reconcile an insistence by his officials, which he is forced to mouth on occasions, that the roll-out will complete by 2020 and at the very same time take powers to extend it to 2023. The point questions exactly what is going on.

I can think of various projects that Governments have insisted would complete on time and within cost over the years—I will not go into them in detail—but of all Governments this one is littered with projects of this kind where the plug is ultimately pulled, particularly on IT projects, and usually after enormous cost to the taxpayer. The main difference here is that the enormous cost, as I said earlier, is to the consumer. We are putting the cost directly on to the consumer.

My fear is that unless the Minister—I am hoping genuinely that he will be able to do this today—can offer a convincing explanation for why he has selected 2023 as the period of his extension, unless he can give an assurance that we have not yet heard of what has changed to make this completion target very likely now, and unless he can offer a convincing explanation for what has gone on before, I do not see how in all conscience we can be confident that we are making the right decision.

[Grahame Morris]

To clarify the point about costs—

[The Chair]

Order. Just a moment. I do not want to stray from the terms of the amendment. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, can he keep specifically to the group of amendments?

[Grahame Morris]

Yes, Mr Gapes. On the amendments and the arguments for changing the date and extending the roll-out period, part of the argument being put by my hon. Friend relates to the cost consequences. I simply wanted to identify what those costs were, as presented to the Committee. Is that in order?

[The Chair]

That is for later. When we discuss other matters it will be in order. I would rather not have a general debate on the amendment. We can have a debate on other clauses as we consider the Bill, but I do not wish us to have a general debate at every point. If interventions can focus on the amendments before us at this time, it will be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Not entirely. That is one interpretation of the word “offering”. If we adopt that theoretically interesting but practically difficult interpretation, what are we doing here, worrying about the roll-out? Provided that we can ensure that the chosen vehicles for the roll-out—the energy supply companies—can at some stage up to the end of 2020 tick a box showing that they have contacted Mrs Miggins of Acacia Avenue and Mr Bloggins of somewhere else, and asked them “Do you want a smart meter: yes or no?” and those people answered, “Hmm, I don’t know,” that is the end of it. Presumably we could end up at the end of 2020 with 20% coverage and a small number of meters rolled out.

[Grahame Morris]

I am following my hon. Friend’s arguments about critical mass and the number of people participating. Does he have a view about why Northern Ireland is not in the scope of the Bill? With regard to Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling pointed out that it was because of problems with internet coverage, and so on. Is there a similar issue with Northern Ireland and is that relevant to helping to achieve critical mass in the number of people who apply?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Mr Gapes. I am happy to follow your guidance. In my defence I can only say that I think I was led by an intervention into an interesting anecdote about what happens in the United States as far as meter installation is concerned. I will endeavour not to go any further on that.

We have a smart meter installation programme that is voluntary and, at the same time, we need a proportion—not 100% but quite a lot—of smart meters installed in order to make the programme work by having worthwhile aggregated data, so we clearly need to put a lot of effort into ensuring that the benefits of the programme are explained to the public. The evidence suggests that the public overwhelmingly like smart meters when they are introduced and that they want to have them in their homes. We therefore need to make a lot of effort over the period to ensure that the two ends—the voluntary nature of the programme and the need for substantial roll-out—can be reconciled. That will constitute much of our debate over the next few sittings. What is it that we need to be doing and should be done, but perhaps has not been done to ensure that the roll-out programme gets its output properly organised and smart meters installed?

The first question is about what we mean by an offer for everyone to have a smart meter. We have gone over that for a little while, and I am sure the Minister will have something to say on that. We then need to consider what we mean by the 2023 date in the Bill. I have four possible explanations as to the thinking behind that date.

The first is that we may not actually meet the roll-out date of the end of 2020, so we may need Government control to continue up to the end of 2023. Let us remember that this is about Government control of licensing arrangements for the whole roll-out. We may need that control to continue to deal with the eventuality that the roll-out date is changed. We may, at some future date, say that the new target is 2021, 2022 or whatever, and that we still need that control in place. We do not want to be here in 2023—I probably will not be here, but other hon. Members may be—going through this whole thing all over again and saying that we would like to have that control extended to whatever date.

The second is to do with the remedial action that may need to be taken if smart meters are just offered up to 2020 and the offer proves to be just that. Conceivably, given what the Government have said is their aim for the roll-out, we may reach the target date for their offer to be made—the end of 2020—and it may turn out that it is not really a roll-out at all and that we need to do various other things. Perhaps the 2023 date is there so that we can consider what to do in the eventuality that the offer turns out to be not very good at all.

There is also the question of what is happening with the specification of smart meters. We will look further at that, but it is pertinent to the roll-out date. As we heard in evidence, the Data Communications Company is supposed to control everything as far as smart meters are concerned. It will receive and organise data, it will communicate between the centre, the smart meters and the many networks, and it may well be responsible for further patching networks to ensure that wide area networks work. All that will be done through the DCC. It was always necessary for the DCC to start its roll-out to enable smart meters that have been installed and those that will be installed to connect with it and therefore go live at the earliest possible date. However, the DCC systematically failed to go live when it should have done. It repeatedly announced delays in going live. It eventually went live in autumn last year, under circumstances in which most of the industry raised substantial eyebrows.

[Grahame Morris]

We are dealing specifically with dates and with whether we have a justification for extending the roll-out period by three years. As my hon. Friend indicated, we are talking about huge sums of money. That may not be public money from the Treasury, but the consumer will certainly bear the scheme’s cost, which is of the order of £12 billion. It is relevant that the DCC, which is the company responsible for delivery, and the framework and arrangements that sit around it—the Minister seeks to amend some of the terms of those, particularly the dates involved—are fit for purpose. Is the DCC a stand-alone company or a subsidiary of a larger group or company?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend asks two questions, one of which I fear is a little outside the scope of the Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, Mr Gapes, and I would not want to go down that path either.

[Grahame Morris]

I am certainly not going to challenge your patience, Mr Gapes—

[The Chair]

No, you are not.

[Grahame Morris]

This specifically relates to the date.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

The hon. Gentleman is past the point of no return.

[Grahame Morris]

That is certainly not my intention, Minister. My point relates to the amendment, the justification for extending the date by an additional three years and whether the delivery vehicle is fit for purpose. Was my hon. Friend surprised, as I was, when the witnesses told us that only 250 units had gone live to date? Does that imply that the company is fit for purpose?

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which is absolutely bang in scope.

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Grahame Morris]

I managed to hit the target!

[The Chair]

For once.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Well, I would like to make it very clear—this is absolutely within the scope of the Bill and the amendments—that the purpose of the Bill and clause 1 is not to give the Government more time because they or the companies are behind on targets. It really is not; it is to extend the existing powers of the Secretary of State to do quite a lot of things. I will not say this again unless I am asked, but it is not to give the Government more time. Hon. Members’ comments have often probed that point, so I thought I should make that absolutely clear, and then happily go through the measure.

I have seen in my business life quite a lot of targets. They are called hockey sticks. When we look at a business plan, or any plan, suddenly next year seems so fantastic compared with this year, and all of a sudden we wake up on 1 January and say, “Oh great, we’re going to do five times as much as we did in November.” I must say that when I first looked at this plan, that was my thought. It is my job to be cynical. Just as it is the Opposition’s job to be cynical with regard to me, it is my job to be cynical with regard to officials on the programme; that is what the system exists for.

[Grahame Morris]

Will the Minister clarify something? I am slightly confused. If the purpose of the measure is not to give the suppliers more time to meet their obligations, what is the justification?

[Richard Harrington]

I repeat that it is absolutely to extend the Secretary of State’s powers. I was going to mention the 2023 issue and the reason for that. In fact, I scribbled myself a note to answer the hon. Gentleman’s comments about it. So as not to repeat my own scrawl—in fact, I will repeat my scrawl later, because I cannot remember where I put the note.

On the 2023 issue, a lot of things in the powers are not about the targets. Richard Milhous Nixon, whose biography I have just been reading, said, “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” I do not know if that is unparliamentary; if it is, I apologise. We could easily say, “That’s it; we will leave those powers, because then they will do it”, but that is not what is happening. I am not a fan of Richard Milhous Nixon, for those who might think that, but it struck me that that often in life, that is why people do things.

A lot of things in the powers that are needed will be involved in winding up. I will cover them a little bit later. I do not think it would be possible for any organisation to suddenly give a date—31 December or November or whatever—when the powers run out and that is it. A lot of the things involved go beyond the target. The targets are made with the suppliers. It was asked what happens if suppliers do not do this. There are powers to fine; the regulator has powers to fine suppliers, from memory—if I am wrong by a bit, I will correct the record—10% of turnover if they do not comply with the agreed targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

They have not needed to be yet, but they are there. The hon. Gentleman does not mention—no one has given any credit for this—the 7 million smart meters that have been installed. That is quite a lot of smart meters. I have seen the programme that has been put out, and having spoken to so many of the companies and organisations involved, I am satisfied that it is a realistic target. I had better make some progress; I will not be able to address his amendment properly unless I do.

For me, this is the most significant thing that has happened in electricity, but also in power supply to homes, since Edison or whoever it was—hon. Members will have to excuse me; it is a long time since I did it at school.

[Grahame Morris]

Swan.

[Richard Harrington]

That is right. Swan was not matches then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we speak regularly to the suppliers. In fact, yesterday morning I met a group of them. I think Mr Lickorish was there, but certainly others who gave evidence, Mr Bullen and Mr Salter-Church from Ofgem, were there. BEIS has regular meetings. I would not put my name or that of the Department to this target if I thought it was unrealistic. Hon. Members have referred to Mr Lickorish’s evidence showing some cynicism about it. The cliché on these occasions is, “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” I am sure it is a genuinely held belief, but it is the Government’s intent to make sure this happens. I would be hauled, as they say in the press, before whatever Committee if the target is not met in 2020, or whatever the date might be—not 2023, because that would be on a different issue; that is not the target. But I might end up being accused of misleading the House, albeit not on purpose, and being told I was completely wrong and should pay the price. However, I am personally satisfied that the date is not as unrealistic as Mr Lickorish said.

The extension of powers has been mentioned, and I think I have stressed enough that is not because of failing to meet the target. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton said earlier that he was concerned that the cost to consumers from the smart meter roll-out could be unlimited. He was probably referring to poorer people in our constituencies, who currently do prepayment and might suddenly be hit with an unlimited charge by suppliers, justified or not. I want to make it clear to him and to everyone else that we are monitoring the costs all the time. The DCC, which is a natural monopoly, simply because it is the only company connecting smart meters, is subject to price control regulated by Ofgem, which has provisions for monopolies. The DCC is slap bang in the middle of that.

[Grahame Morris]

Is there not a danger that building in an overrun will inevitably lead to cost escalation? The estimates presented in evidence were an increase from £1.3 billion to £2.1 billion, and the overall programme is £12 billion, which I think Mr Lickorish told us was the equivalent of 10 200-bed hospitals.

[Richard Harrington]

Actually, concentrating the mind in the Nixonian way, the next couple of years will surely lead to reduced costs because of economies of scale, but we can discuss that another time. I will be happy to.

The shadow Minister said that small suppliers have a weaker obligation in relation to 2020. That is not quite true, although he did not intend to mislead us with the wording he used. It is exactly the same obligation. The only flexibility the small suppliers have been given is that they can deliver their programmes in line with their broader corporate strategy. We are allowing the smaller ones to be later in the programme because, unlike British Gas and others that have been mentioned, they have not got the bulk.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me. I am being told to make progress.

Amendment 1 relates to the Secretary of State’s power to modify the relevant electricity licence conditions and industry codes, which relate to the detailed regulatory framework, covering the activities of energy suppliers and network operators, and the data and communications licensee. It would cause those powers to expire at the end of 2020, which, again, has nothing to do with the target. I do not think anyone would argue that they should just disappear. I oppose amendment 1 because it removes the Department’s ability to conduct an effective post-implementation review, which, as I said earlier, we will need to do. The aim is for that to happen in 2021. The extension of powers until 2023 allows us to complete that exercise and implement the recommendations.

I know that this is a probing amendment, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, but I do not think he took those things into consideration. He concentrated his comments on whether to extend the target, which I hope I have covered. In contrast, in the absence of the power we are asking for to modify the energy licence conditions and industry codes beyond 2020, we would have to bring the review forward. For it to be consulted on properly, and to provide the appropriate parliamentary process, it would be necessary to conclude the evidence gathering the year after next at the absolute latest, which as far as I can see would completely reduce the robustness of the assessment and exclude valuable evidence from the final stages of the roll-out. It would also prevent the consideration of longitudinal research exploring the impact of smart metering on consumer behaviour, which is what this is all about, and energy saving over the course of several years. If it were carried out before 2020, there would not be enough evidence. I believe smart meters will be absolutely revolutionary, and will change the way people use their energy bills. If hon. Members believe in smart metering—I am sure you have been persuaded, as the rest of us have, Mr Gapes, that this is a really good thing to do—and think it is not just a short-term thing, it is right that the Government can ensure that the regulatory framework is there and is fit for purpose for decades to come.

Amendments 2 and 4 would limit the period to which the Secretary of State can veto Ofgem’s proposal to give consent to the transfer of the whole or of any part of the communication licence. Again, if the amendments were passed, the Secretary of State could prevent the transfer only up to the end of 2020. DCC’s smart meter licences were awarded in 2013 for 12 years. The curtailment of that power would create an imbalance in the Government’s arrangements of the smart metering programme, undermining our leadership role within it.

I know it sounds like we want it both ways, but the Government’s role is absolutely central to this. We have to provide the leadership that we have been asked for. I do not want to risk having a situation in which a smart meter communication licence was transferred in a manner that conflicts with activities undertaken by the programme as part of its post-implementation review. It is necessary to extend the power to 1 November 2023 to retain coherence in the Government relating to the smart metering programme and to ensure that these activities are appropriately co-ordinated.

Amendments 3 and 5 would limit the Secretary of State’s ability to introduce new licensable activities in relation to the smart metering roll-out. The power we are talking about was used to set up the provision of the smart meter communications service, which led to the granting of the DCC’s licences. I want to make it clear that we have no specified or defined plans to use the power. Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will still argue that if the scenarios change, primary legislation will be needed to go through it again, and I understand that. However, I can see scenarios that could develop where we will need the ability to introduce new, licensable activities quickly, in order to overcome barriers and to ensure that the benefits are realised. Such situations can arrive relatively late in the roll-out or in the immediate post-implementation period.

[Grahame Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I would rather make some progress.

[Grahame Morris]

I just wanted an example, that was all.

[The Chair]

Order.

Smart Meters Bill (Second sitting)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. The last question goes to Mr Morris.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Mrs Gillan. I will also try to be brief. Mr Lickorish, you raised some interesting concepts. I was not familiar with the deemed rental issue, for example. You mentioned perverse behaviour caused by political milestones. Presumably you are of the belief that delaying that roll-out to 2023 is a political milestone that will induce perverse behaviour.

Derek Lickorish: It is no good having a target that nobody believes in. Every programme must have targets. I am not saying, “Change 2020 now.” I think that is a good contingency and I am pleased to see that someone somewhere realises that. I do not think it has a perverse effect on behaviour. You can keep on saying it is 2020, but we need a recognition now that says, “We will look at all the issues and have a unity of purpose about what the targets should be”, because at the end of the day this is not Treasury money; this is customers’ money.

[Grahame Morris]

Q I want to try to understand this, because essentially I am a layman. Looking at the obstacles to achieving the milestones that are already agreed and the performance of the DCC, there seems to be general disappointment about the numbers. A year on and it is 250 when the assumption was that it would be considerably more. If my reading of the explanatory notes is correct, the DCC is regulated by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. I am not suggesting that there would be a failure by the DCC, but in that event—for whatever reason, whether it is political interference or technical issues—the Bill has a proposal to give the Secretary of State the power to veto any proposal by the authority to transfer the DCC licence. Do you have any thoughts on that? Are there any circumstances when it would be reasonable to veto the transfer of the licence?

Derek Lickorish: I could give you an answer tomorrow, but I have not thought about it enough, and I do not wish to give a weak, woolly answer because I do not understand the issues at play.

[Grahame Morris]

Q Hypothetically, could there be circumstances where due to poor performance or whatever it is necessary to transfer the DCC licence?

Derek Lickorish: One has to say that it must be possible, so it is right to prepare for that contingency, but I am basing that purely on my own experience of being in the power industry for 47 years. You always have to expect the unexpected. If something seriously goes wrong with this—there is an endemic failure and they are not able to solve it—you must be able to have the power to do something about it. That seems possible.

[Grahame Morris]

Q I am not trying to put words in your mouth; this is just for my understanding. Should the Committee be concerned about the veto proposed in the Bill to prevent such a transfer?

Derek Lickorish: I am not sure that there should be a veto to prevent it.

[Grahame Morris]

We will ask the Minister about that during the course of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Q Mr Wiles, is there anything you would like to add to this?

Richard Wiles: With the complexities and everything, the whole programme is very complex by the nature of the design. To be honest, I have not examined absolute cases of how it could happen, so unfortunately I cannot answer that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I am happy to let Mr Morris go first. I know he has been waiting for a long time.

[Grahame Morris]

No, that is okay.

[Richard Harrington]

Q Thank you very much for coming, Doctors, as it were. I thank you for the efforts that you have made professionally to get the programme to the stage it is at now. Although difficult, I would like to ask a broad question that will encompass both your areas. In my Government job, I view the smart meter programme as just the very beginning of a future smart grid for people. I have seen prototypes in America and elsewhere, which you will know much better than I do. What change in human behaviour patterns have you seen up to now for people who have what we could call a very prototype smart grid with smart meters? From both the building and the consumer point of view, what is the vision for the future?

Dr Sarah Darby: I am not sure we can yet say that there is a prototype smart grid. The beginnings of smart energy tend to be different in every country and smart metering in this country is different from smart metering anywhere else. In fact, more attention has been paid to the consumer engagement side of smart metering in this country than anywhere else. This is the only country where a fairly intensive effort is put into customer engagement at the time of roll-out of the smart meter, when everyone is offered an in-home display, and all the installers are trained in communication skills to explain what is going on, what can be done with the display, what the smart meter is about and how customers can use it as a tool, if they wish to. This country is a bit special in that way, and we are seeing, on average, modest positive effects.

In the US, where smart metering is widespread, the emphasis has been very much on using it to try to control peak demand, and as an instrument to introduce time-of-use pricing and whack up the prices at peak times to keep peak demand down. They have special problems there, particularly in the hotter states, with air-conditioning in the summertime and very high peak loads, which is an expensive problem for them to manage. The earliest roll-out of smart meters was mostly, in my understanding, to overcome serious problems with fraud.

Dr Richard Fitton: I agree with Sarah, the UK is very strong on smart meters. If you speak to anyone in Europe, a lot of them are envious of the technical standards of the smart meters that are being rolled out. As we have heard from all the sessions, it is a very complicated issue and it is not getting any less complicated, certainly for the consumer.

Our research group’s angle is everything from the consumer side of the meter. We are looking at how to diagnose problems with buildings using the data and systems that are available. We are also developing appliances that will work with smart meters. A big piece of the puzzle that is missing from some of the discussions is the fact that the consumer should be able to engage with the smart meters. As it stands now, they cannot engage with the smart meters. We can log on to the energy supplier’s portal and get a half-hourly reading. But a magic black box called the consumer access device is the gateway to the occupiers having access to their real-time data. This is not a box on the wall that tells them how much energy is costing. It is a consumer access device that streams real-time data to things such as smart appliances and smart heating systems for homes.

That is the whole aim, as far as I can see, of the smart and flexible grid that we constantly talk about. To attach one of these devices is exceptionally difficult and I have never had one successfully connected personally, nor have colleagues or associates. So a big piece of the puzzle is missing in using this data for something that is really smart, rather than just for billing. Billing is clearly important, but the use of the best-value data for the consumer appears to be the missing part of the puzzle. I think that would also push some buttons to help develop the interest in smart meters and get them into people’s homes.

Smart Meters Bill (First sitting)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. Why has there been such slippage in the programme from the original scheduled roll-out date of 2020? I read in the brief that there is 74% satisfaction among customers when it comes to the existing meters. Is it public perception? Is it lack of advertising? Why has take-up not been as good as originally anticipated?

Audrey Gallacher: We currently have the foundation stage for the smart meter roll-out with first generation meters. That was always the intention, as it is important that a programme of this nature and size is properly trialled and tested, so that when we move on to the mass roll-out that can be done as cost effectively and efficiently as possible, and with the best possible customer experience.

It is probably fair to say that the foundation stage has continued longer than we originally envisaged because there have been some delays around the enduring infrastructure to support the second generation meters. While that was really important, and there are already 8 million of those meters already, a lot of learnings have been taken, which means that we have a delay in the real ramp up. Until we see that ramp up, it might be difficult to understand the consumer appetite and attitude to smart meters, because we have not yet really started in earnest.

Bill Bullen: Obviously I have some difference of opinion about that. Certainly, in the market where we operate there has been great engagement with smart meters. In terms of the roll-out, one of the big issues has been the delays around the central systems for the second generation of meters. Personally, I think it was possibly not the best decision to go down that route in the first place. We would not be where we are, with 8 million meters already installed, if we did not have the first generation going out there.

My key concern, without wanting to rake over the coals of the past, is what is going to happen in the next two or three years. That will clearly be critical to the continued roll-out of smart meters, and particularly to delivering benefits to low-income prepayment households. That will be to do with the rules around the cut-over between SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 and whether continued roll-out of smart meters is going to be financially viable, because of the pre-pay price cap and changes to environmental levies that are going to have an impact on that going forward.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Q I am interested to hear about the proposition to consumers. How do you package smart meters up? What are the benefits that you talk of when you talk to consumers about smart meters? In relation to your answer to that question, why are we where we are? Why are we only 7 million in?

Bill Bullen: You have to realise that there is a completely different benefits case for prepayment customers versus normal credit customers. We are completely focused on prepayment.

As I have said already, the benefits to prepay customers are huge—the convenience alone is worth a considerable amount to somebody who may otherwise suffer an interruption to their power supply at a critical moment. With a smart meter, they can get the supply back on immediately; with a dumb meter, they cannot. Frankly, that is the biggest selling point right now, not least because, with the price cap at the level it is, there is no differential in price anymore. But customers are still buying smart prepay, so our growth rate has slowed down since 1 April, but it has not stopped. Customers do still get the benefits.

Audrey Gallacher: For consumers more generally, there are lots of benefits around an end to estimated balances. There should be improvements in the accuracy of bills and consumers should have more control over their energy because they can see it in pounds and pence in real time, so they can reduce consumption and save money. There is more information available to facilitate easier switching, so you can change to another supplier with more confidence.

Lots of the stats that Smart Energy GB, the communications and marketing company, is providing from its research show that this is starting to bear fruit. People are much more confident that their bill is accurate—83% compared with 61% of the non-smart population. There is a lot of satisfaction with the smart process. About 80% of people like their smart meter and thought it was a good process, 75% would recommend them to friends and family, and 80% have already taken action to reduce their energy consumption. There are lots of real benefits. We have also seen a reduction in complaints and an increase in satisfaction.

But the real prize is much longer term. Smart meters are an enabler for a much smarter and more flexible future. They are going to allow us to have much more control over the networks so that we can not only reduce demand and hopefully reduce the need for ever more energy generation, but use the networks more flexibly. They are an enabler for electric vehicles and storage, and all the other things that we anticipate for the future, so it is really critical that we get this done. To Bill’s point, we want to do it as effectively as possible at the least possible cost to consumers and with minimal interruption, but it is an absolutely essential component of the energy system of the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

Q Do you think that consumers are aware that they can protect their data in the way that you suggest?

Rob Salter-Church: Yes, I believe they are. Suppliers have clear obligations. What the smart metering installation code of practice does is require those to be explained. There is a quarterly survey that suppliers have to undertake to check compliance with the smart metering installation code of practice. That gathers data to check whether suppliers are indeed being clear to their customers in explaining what options they have got around giving access to data. I believe that that is happening in practice.

[Grahame Morris]

Q Just quickly, given that time is short—Rob, your opening remarks were really helpful about the terms of reference as the regulator. However, we are being asked, here, to extend the powers of the Secretary of State. Are any of the powers that we are proposing to change through the Bill related to smart meters, and if so, which ones? Angus, the Bill proposes that costs should be recouped from customers in the event of an administration, rather than from the insolvent company. What is your view on that?

Rob Salter-Church: The powers are solely around smart metering. They are an extension of the Government’s existing powers in relation to smart metering and, then, the special administration regime for the DCC.

[Grahame Morris]

Q Can they be used for any other purpose?

Rob Salter-Church: No. We are wholly supportive of the Government taking these powers to ensure an orderly conclusion to the programme.

Angus Flett: The financial governance I have makes it highly unlikely that the special administration will be required. The way I am structured is that I invoice my customers and they are required, under licence conditions, to pay me within five days. I also have the facility to take a month’s worth of my invoicing as a credit balance, so I carry cash.

The way I invoice my suppliers is between 20 and 30 days. I also have a £5 million keep well deed from a shareholder and a guaranteed bond of £10 million that I can draw down on. The special administration is set up so that, in the highly unlikely event that we became insolvent, it could administrate and keep the lights on until another organisation could be found to take us over. The costs of that administration can be recovered back on my customer base. So it is a sensible measure, although highly unlikely to be required.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Q Our earlier witnesses were speaking about the ways to the roll out and, ultimately, not being able to meet original timeframes. In the report earlier this year, you were looking at roll out and some potential problems with it. The number of installers was highlighted as an issue. Is that still an issue? If we as a Committee agree to a number of things about extending the timescale, will there still be a problem with there not physically being enough people able to do the job?

Rob Salter-Church: The 2020 target for completing the roll-out as set by Government was always going to be a challenge, and it remains a challenge, as was said earlier. One of the things Ofgem has done is put in place a framework where we require suppliers to submit to us a plan for the roll-out, setting themselves annual targets that we can enforce against if they do not meet those targets.

We scrutinise the plans that we see from suppliers; if they say, “We will install x number of meters per year”, we do not just take it for granted that that is going to happen. We require them to show us what that will mean for the installer capacity that you might need. What does that mean in terms of the contracts that you are going to have to sign to buy meters, and so on? We scrutinise that to give confidence that the suppliers have got arrangements in place to make their plans deliverable.

The information you are referring to that we publish is our conclusions, having looked across the piece at some of the biggest risks to the programme, which suppliers must remain focused, laser-like, on managing. Indeed, getting hold of enough installers is one of those issues.

Suppliers’ plans for 2017 are broadly on track for meeting their installation targets at the end of this year. A couple of suppliers are slightly behind, but not significantly so. What that tells me is that, yes, there is a real challenge to get to ’20, but suppliers are pretty much on track with the plans that they have set themselves for how they will meet their obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because the history and reputation of this country during the past 100 years, and especially during the past decade, has been based on having in this country a system of vigorous competition in which businesses compete not because they are guaranteed a position by the state but because they face pressure from competitors. That has introduced extraordinary prosperity that would be thrown away were we to adopt a different system, such as that proposed 100 years ago.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T7. Will the Secretary of State assure the House of his Department’s commitment to enforce the national minimum wage in the maritime sector? Why have officials from his Department been unable to attend meetings of the cross-departmental legal working group on seafarers?

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the national minimum wage and seafarers. We are looking into it and I will write to him with the latest position.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.

The brief explanation that accompanied the clause stand part debate in Committee covered all the points that need to be made about this short Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed so fully, and I am grateful for their support for the measures. I wish the Bill an equally swift passage through the other place and on to Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I would like to pay tribute to a loyal servant of this House, Trevor Ford, who has been a Doorkeeper for more than 20 years and is retiring today. He is from my region; he was actually born in Gateshead, but is a proud red and white Sunderland supporter all the same. He served with great distinction in the Royal Air Force from 1969 to 1992 and completed tours in both Northern Ireland, during the 1970s, and West Germany. In 1996, he became a Doorkeeper here in the House of Commons. Many of us will know that Trevor has worked at almost every post in and around the Chamber; he has worked in the Members’ Lobby, at the back of the Speaker’s Chair, in the Strangers Gallery and, more recently, in the Special Gallery. He has been the Bar Doorkeeper and has led the Speaker’s Procession on many occasions. He is a thoroughly well liked, thoroughly decent individual, and he has served this House with great distinction for 21 years. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to thank him for his loyal service and wish him well on his retirement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

On a technical matter, I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for raising that point of order. It was, of course, not a point of order for the Chair, but I am delighted that he took the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this is Trevor Ford’s last day in his current office. On behalf of everyone in the whole House, I would like to add our very grateful thanks to Trevor Ford, who has carried out his duties with great dignity over many, many years. All of us who are elected to this House know very well, every minute of every day, that we could not do our duties if we did not have the support and absolute loyalty of the other servants of the House, who carry out their duties so well. We appreciate that what Trevor Ford has done over many years often goes without notice, but we notice all the hard work and all the dedication. I am absolutely delighted that the House has this momentary opportunity to pay tribute to Trevor’s many, many years of service. I should just say for the record that while I have been saying this he has managed to stand to attention the whole time—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] It is unusual that we can manage to pay a tribute such as this, but let me give our very sincere thanks from the whole House. We wish Trevor all the very best for the future.