Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Ian Murray and Ed Davey

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

We are listening to their lordships House. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the argument is a little more complicated than what he has set out.

Consensus is critical, not just across the House, but within the coalition parties. I accept that there have been debates within the coalition, but we have come together and produced a coherent energy policy. I will aim to rebuild the consensus with the right hon. Member for Don Valley because, as I think she knows, that is in the national interest.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his contribution. He talks about sending a message of consensus from this House to investors in the energy market in this country, but today he has the opportunity to send a message of consensus from this House to people who are struggling to heat their homes this winter. Will he take that opportunity?

[Mr Davey]

I certainly will because I believe we have the best policies. There are two routes to rebuilding that crucial consensus. The first, which I would love to take, is to invite the right hon. Lady and the leader of the Labour party to discuss the issues with me so that we can try to reach out to Labour Members, explain why we think their policies are extremely damaging, and try to get the energy policy back on to that important political consensus. I fear, however, that that will not be possible. The noises we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Lady suggest that they do not see the error of their ways, despite many people explaining it to them.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Ed Davey

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak.

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the Bill to this stage in the House and I hope that we can at least conclude its Third Reading this morning.

[Mr Davey]

I concur with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in his praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). May I, laser beam-like and briefly, focus on the amendments?

Amendment 3 talks about the independent oversight group. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) seemed to misunderstand what the group is about. It is about providing the appropriate challenge to the evidence and methodologies to ensure that they are robust. Amendment 3, which would dispense with the independent oversight group entirely, would be a retrograde step. The Committee welcomed the way in which we had approached the issue of the oversight group.

The amendments that seek to change the membership of the group misunderstand the role of the group. They seek to suggest that it is about representation, when it is not. Trying to confine it to academics only would be a mistake. There might be an appropriate expert who might not be described as an academic. I hope the House will understand that the oversight group is formed in the right way with the right terms of reference. I am surprised that Members want to amend the terms of reference to make them more prescriptive, because that could narrow them down.

Members have talked about the faith impact. Amendment 95 is not needed, because it is clear that this is one of the qualitative potential effects that the report would look at. To reassure hon. Members further, I can say that specific legal provision requiring that the impact on faith communities be considered is unnecessary because the Secretary of Sate is subject to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. So, in preparing the report and taking a view on whether to exercise the powers for a trial, the Secretary of Sate would be required under that duty to take into account the impact that a change might have on people of a particular faith and, indeed, on other people with protected characteristics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Ed Davey

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

There is already whistleblowing legislation; I believe that it was passed by the previous Government. We would therefore advise employees in the situation that the hon. Lady describes to look at that.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and the Minister are obviously at loggerheads with Downing street over their proposals on changes to employment law, and have been forced to consult on no-fault dismissal. Lord Heseltine believes that such a measure would

“make life rougher and tougher for large numbers of people”;

Citizens Advice described it as a rogue’s charter; only 6% of SMEs consider employment law as a factor when employing people; and the Secretary of State himself has said that there was already a “reasonably good balance” between rights and flexibility in Britain. So why is his Department—the Department for no growth—trying to make it easier to fire rather than hire people?

[Mr Davey]

The truth is that the Government are making it easier to hire people. We understand the importance of fair, efficient and flexible labour markets. We will protect those because that is in our country’s interest. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that we are working very closely with colleagues across the coalition on all aspects of our employment law review. This coalition is more together than the Labour party was when it was in government.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Ed Davey

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Deutsche Post and its legal protections. He and hon. Members who served on the Postal Services Public Bill Committee will be aware that the protection given to post offices in rural areas of Germany is that there must be a post office every 80 sq km. Is that what he proposes for this country?

[Ian Murray]

We are proposing protection for the post office network in any fashion, which the Minister point blank refuses to give, even though his Back Benchers are asking him to consider it through the new clause.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“No previous Government have thought to put it on any different footing.”

However, no other Government have needed to intervene on the inter-business agreement because no other Government have separated the post office network from Royal Mail, which is what will happen under this full-scale privatisation. He has tried to reassure stakeholders by arguing that both Royal Mail and the Post Office want an extended inter-business agreement. As has been said, the stated aims of the management of Royal Mail and the Post Office are to keep the relationship, but to be frank, management changes rather quickly and regularly. We need more reassurance in the Bill, rather than words from the management of Royal Mail and the Post Office. The Minister went on to argue in his evidence to the Committee:

“If you actually wrote that there should be a contract between two companies that are going to be separate companies into law, I think that it would be subject to serious legal challenge.”––[Official Report, Postal Services Public Bill Committee, 11 November 2010; c. 121-123, Q244-245.]

He therefore admitted that there will be no inter-business agreement going forward and that the post office network is essentially being hung out to dry by this legislation, along with the Royal Mail and tens of thousands of workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how delighted I am to be able to give him that reassurance. It was a slip of the tongue.

Some people have concerns about the wording of our amendments, which ensure that Her Majesty’s head will be on our stamps in future. I can assure hon. Members that, under section 10 of the Interpretation Act 1978, “Her Majesty” can be taken as

“a reference to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of the Act”

and construed as applying to any future Sovereign, so people should not worry about that.

May I turn to the Post Office? There has rightly been a lot of debate about the impact of the Government’s proposals on the network of post offices. First, I want to be absolutely clear that we are talking about a sale of shares in Royal Mail, not in the Post Office. They are both cornerstones of British life, but they are different businesses facing different problems, and that is why separation has been so widely supported by the experts. Of course, their futures are closely linked, and we expect that they will always have a strong commercial relationship, but securing the future of Royal Mail will of course help to secure the future of the Post Office as the natural outlet for purchasing Royal Mail services.

I shall say again something that I have said many times before. There will be no programme of post office closures under this Government. I have been very clear on that, as has my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary. That is why we have pledged £1.34 billion of funding to support the post office network, funding that will ensure the continuation of at least 11,500 post office branches throughout the United Kingdom.

[Ian Murray]

The debate about new clause 2 was certainly robust. Can the Minister give the House a cast-iron guarantee that, as a result of the decisions he is just about to take, no post offices will close?

[Mr Davey]

If the hon. Gentleman had been present for our debates in Committee, he would have found that his Opposition colleagues understand that it is impossible for any Minister in this or previous Governments to say that no individual post office will ever close. Why? Because in large part they are private businesses, and individuals can retire, decide to close their business or, of course, die. So, it is impossible to give him that reassurance. The reassurance I can give him, which his colleagues could not during the previous Parliament, is that no programme of closures will be driven by this Government. That is why we have secured the money, and the deal—the contract signed by the Government with Post Office Ltd—ensures that there will be a network of at least 11,500 post office branches throughout the United Kingdom.

When the Opposition scaremonger on that issue, we simply need to remind ourselves of their record on post offices. When urgency was needed to invest in Royal Mail, the only urgency the previous Government demonstrated was an urgency to close post offices. The numbers do not lie. The number of days the previous Government were in office: 4,753. The number of post offices closed in their two major closure programmes: 4,854. That is a strike rate worthy of an English batsman, not of a Government seeking to protect communities, small businesses and the most vulnerable throughout our country, yet we have had no apology for that appalling record.

Through this Bill, the Post Office also has the opportunity to move to a mutual ownership model, which would give employees, sub-postmasters and communities a real stake in their post office network. With our work to pilot more and more new Government services, both national and local, through the post office network, such new ideas will give local post offices a fighting chance.

Let me end by returning to the universal postal service. I reiterate that this Government are fully committed to that service: six-days-a-week collection and delivery to the UK’s 28 million addresses at uniform and affordable prices. This Bill gives Ofcom an overriding duty to secure the provision of the universal service, and the tools that it will need to do so. It gives greater safeguards to the minimum service levels for the universal service, with parliamentary protections, and it creates a new regulatory regime that can bring rapid deregulation for the universal service provider where there is effective competition in the market. Ofcom has a statutory duty to deregulate where it can, and we are giving Ofcom the tools to do so for the postal sector.

I would like to thank all those who have been engaged in the Bill’s passage through the House, particularly Bill Committee members for their work over the past couple of months. We have certainly had some lively discussions. I would also like to thank the hon. Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) and for Angus (Mr Weir). Although we may not have always agreed, I am grateful to all of them for the detailed scrutiny that they have given the Bill.

The coalition Government have not shied away from grappling with this issue, which has defeated two one-party Governments. This shows the Government at their strongest and most radical. This Government are taking decisive action to tackle the problems that the previous Government ducked. I commend the Bill to the House.