Acquired Brain Injury

Debate between John Hayes and Steve Baker

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and to endorse and amplify his remarks about the Minister. Many people achieve office in this House, but few are more deserving of that opportunity than the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy). We are delighted to have her with us today. We will be even more delighted when she answers some of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Rhondda and gives us an assurance that the Government will continue—for they have begun well—to take this subject seriously and will act on the recommendations in this excellent report, which would not have happened without the initiative, enterprise and energy of the hon. Gentleman. His commitment has been exemplary.

The work of the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury is illustrative of this House doing what it does best: coming together, highlighting a subject, and bringing it to the attention of the wider world and of those who exercise power. We have, I believe, done a good job, but it is only the beginning of a journey. The destination we seek is our recommendations being enacted in full. Perhaps I am being a little ambitious, but at the very least the Government have taken a renewed and reinvigorated interest—I would not for a moment suggest that they were not interested already—in this subject, which affects so many people.

Perhaps that is the place to start. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the definition of brain injury, but I want to speak about the scale of the problem. The number of families affected by acquired brain injury, which, as the hon. Gentleman described, includes anything from traumatic events through to brain tumours, is immense. Hospital admissions for head injuries number 162,544—one every three minutes. ABI admissions have increased by 10% since 2005-06. Although men are 1.6 times more likely than women to be admitted for head injury, the incidence of female head injury has increased by 24% since 2005-06. Families across our nation and in all our constituencies are affected. The challenges are profound, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman described.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the report. May I add to my right hon. Friend’s list what I have discovered in my constituency? Even babies can acquire brain injuries from contracting meningitis, or during childbirth. I hope he will join me in encouraging the Government to consider that issue as well.

[Sir John Hayes]

I will—very much so. I have been terribly unlucky, by the way, having suffered a severe head injury as a result of a road traffic accident and, like the hon. Member for Rhondda, contracted bacterial meningitis. We both speak with some authority on this subject.

The patterns that those families endure are similar, one to another. Initially, of course, there is shock—a sense of disbelief—and the question that most people pose in these circumstances: “Why me?” Then there is a gradual realisation of the depth and scale of the effects of acquired brain injury, and an unhappy initial concentration on what the person can no longer do, followed eventually by a reconcentration on what they can do. Most families follow that pattern when they suffer this kind of event, and that is why all that is done beyond the treatment of the initial trauma is so critically important.

Neuro-rehabilitation is vital because of the dynamic character of these conditions. Most people who acquire a brain injury will change. Many will recover fully and some will recover partly, but all that takes place over a long period and is particular to each case. There is an unpredictability about the effects of acquired brain injury; it can affect physical capacity of course, psychology and cerebral function, as well as personality. Families dealing with that must cope with those kinds of changes, which can be terribly frightening for the individuals concerned and those who love them. The point is that a difference can be made by the quality of care that they receive during that rather difficult journey.

2019 Loan Charge

Debate between John Hayes and Steve Baker

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Baker]

I obviously cannot comment on individual circumstances. However, this is a good opportunity to draw a distinction between taking people on as contractors and insisting that they join schemes that could end up with their using disguised remuneration arrangements. On the one hand, contracting is a legitimate way of going about business; on the other, engaging in disguised remuneration schemes—an aggressive form of tax avoidance—is not desirable.

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is doing a sterling job of raising this matter in this place. On that basis, will he challenge the Minister on how many firms have been investigated, how many promoters have been pursued and prosecuted, and how many of those had some connection to Government contracts or payments?

[Mr Baker]

I join my right hon. Friend’s call for the Minister to set that out, which my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard. I will now make some progress.

The Loan Charge Action Group says that the human impact of receiving a bill for up to 10 years’ worth of tax will have a catastrophic effect on individuals and their families. On whom among us would it not have a catastrophic effect? It goes on to say that we are looking at thousands of bankruptcies, family break-ups and suicide attempts, as well as mental illness, unemployment, loss of abode and more. That is a catalogue of human suffering and misery.

HMRC’s impact assessment of the measure says:

“This package is not expected to have a material impact on family formation, stability or breakdown.”

However, that looks at aggregates, not the impact on individuals, which it seems to me is a common mistake of Government. As a Conservative, I wish to focus first and foremost on the individual, not the collective.

I will foreshorten my remarks, given the interventions I have taken. One specific complaint is the lack of warning. A freedom of information request revealed that HMRC has issued about 23,000 loan charge awareness letters, which were only issued from the second quarter of 2018. HMRC says that 50,000 individuals may be affected, so many will be unaware of the impending charge. The Loan Charge Action Group points out that the opportunities to settle new tax affairs with HMRC ahead of the charge were similarly not widely publicised, nor was the deadline of 31 May 2018, leaving people in a terrible fix, although I understand that the deadline has been quietly dropped.

The Loan Charge Action Group suggests that historical users of schemes who left many years ago are probably completely ignorant of this new legislation and will only hear of it after receiving a large bill some time in 2020. This is a dreadful risk, which the Government should forestall.

I am keen to conclude, so I will come to some solutions that I ask the Minister to consider. As I outlined in a letter to the Chancellor in September, there should be clarity about what DOTAS—disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—registration means. There should be a legally mandated text accompanying every advertisement of a DOTAS-registered scheme that explains that the purpose of registration is to enable HMRC to identify tax liabilities and to recover them when such schemes are proven not to work. It does not imply any kind of legitimacy, and registration with HMRC is not for the purpose of endorsing the schemes. When HMRC becomes aware that a taxpayer has subscribed to a DOTAS-registered scheme, it should contact the taxpayer and make them aware that registration has the purpose of enforcement and does not convey legitimacy. HMRC must take into account people’s circumstances, and the threat of insolvency should never be used as a kind of extrajudicial punishment.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between John Hayes and Steve Baker

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. Only the other day, I happened to be walking through the corridors of the House when I discovered the former Member Lembit Öpik with Starship Technologies and their small-wheeled delivery robot. If that was scaled up and people were put in it, that would be the future of motoring that we have been discussing—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire shares my despair at that prospect.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire is absolutely right. Why should we have slow, ground-based robots delivering things where people might trip over them and so on, when we could have unmanned aerial vehicles flying briskly through the air? Provided that they are safe and there are insurable risks, it is a jolly good idea that we should be able to innovate in those ways. I certainly endorse his point.

I have covered what I wished to say. I am genuinely excited about the prospects, in industry and agriculture and recreationally, that will arise from UAVs and drones. A few minutes spent by any Member on YouTube looking at what is possible with drones would cause them to share my enthusiasm. I very much hope that the Government, in considering the issues, will not over-regulate so that we lose the potential for joy and beauty that they will bring.

[Mr Hayes]

I spend a good deal of my life trying to take those I know and care for to the stars in all kinds of ways. Today, we have begun that journey. As I heard of dogs, I felt we should cast Pavlov in an entirely new light. It is right that we think of the changing technology in that broad-minded and far-sighted way, as illustrated in the contributions from across the Committee Room.

Drones are here and they are likely to stay. How we now cope with that is the question for parliamentarians. That is precisely why the Government have set about a consultation on these matters.

Attention was drawn to the evidence that was submitted to the Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield emphasised that 70 incidents of drones being flown into conflict with manned aircraft have been reported to us. The concerns of BALPA and others that we need to do more are patent, on the basis of that evidence. What we do, and how we do it, is the purpose of our consultation.

There are several proposals in the consultation, all of which are designed to help the safety of the devices. They include the possibility of a registration scheme, making drones electronically identifiable and strengthening the penalties for breaking the law. The proposal for a registration scheme for all owners and their drones weighing 250 grams and above—whether bought new, second hand or home built—would obviously go a considerable way to dealing with some of the doubts and concerns that have been raised today, without jeopardising the whole existence of drones. I know that enthusiasts such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe would not want us to do that. They may have virtuous purposes—we should not assume the use of drones is entirely a matter of threat and doubt—so the framework for drone regulation needs to create a culture of accountability among drone users, aid enforcement and enable direct targeting of leisure drone users on the law and safe flying. The data set that that kind of policy will produce will also be used to inform the policymakers of the future and to assess risk as the technology develops and changes. As I have said, safety is of paramount importance—I know that is a concern of the whole Committee.

I am unsurprised that the new clause has been tabled, given the character of the Bill and the importance of this problem—or rather the importance of this issue, if I might put it with that prejudice. There will be problems unless we get the regulation of drones right; that is clear from what has been reported to us in evidence.

When the consultation is completed and the Government produce their response this summer, we will have a chance to consider what further steps, including legislative steps, might need to be taken. To anticipate that outcome would not be appropriate at this stage. I hope Committee members will bear with us: there is a determination to take the necessary steps and ensure an understanding of both the opportunities and risks posed by drones.

To that end, it may well be that the matter can be raised again while the Bill is enjoying its passage through Parliament. I have to be frank and say that Members of the other House have expressed a number of the same thoughts, arguments and doubts expressed here today. When the consultation response has been produced, there will be further opportunity to take this matter on in the way that several have recommended. I think I had better stop there.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between John Hayes and Steve Baker

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Baker]

I would like to apologise to the Minister and the Committee for not being here to move new clauses 1 and 2. They were only probing new clauses to explore those subjects, and I am grateful to him for referring to them now. If it is at all possible, I would be grateful if he might consider returning to their substance on Report.

[Mr Hayes]

I think we can go further than that. I try to be helpful to the Committee throughout our proceedings and I, too, am disappointed that we have not had a chance to debate those new clauses in more detail. Perhaps I can drop a line to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire to offer a summary of what I would have said in Committee, had they been here to move their new clauses. That will both keep me within order and abbreviate my remarks so that I can move quickly to new clause 8.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between John Hayes and Steve Baker

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire in a moment if he wishes, but I think that he put his finger on the point very well, not least because he drives a semi-automated car. Imagine my hon. Friend’s Volvo, which requires him to keep his hands on the wheel when it is in semi-automated mode. There could be a software update that allowed him to take his hands off the wheel for an additional five seconds. That is not safety-critical; it is just a variation on the length of time during which it is not necessary to hold the wheel. The point is that such an update would not be critical to the safety of the car’s ability to drive itself—I am grateful to him for indicating assent—but it would be an update related to the software related to the automated function. That is where the amendment falls down. It is possible to conceive of updates that are related to the safety-critical software but not safety-critical. That is where the issue lies.

The other point is that if I have understood correctly, the overall thrust of the Bill, which I welcome, is to be permissive but absolutely clear where liability lies. Drivers know that they are insured whether or not the vehicle is in automated mode. That is the crucial point.

[Mr Hayes]

indicated assent.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the Minister for indicating assent. The point then becomes that it is between the insurer and the manufacturer to ensure that these vehicles are safe, properly insured and that the risks involved are insurable—in other words, low.

I have in mind skydiving. I like to skydive. The parachute that has saved my life a couple of hundred times was sold to me without warranty for use for any particular purpose—in other words, it is formally a novelty item under the law. However, it seems to keep saving my life, provided I use it properly. I am quite comfortable with that, because I understand that the vendors of the equipment—the container and the parachute—produce good, reliable equipment to which one can reliably trust one’s life.

I rather imagine that, in relation to cars, while it will all be much more formal and the software will be more complicated than the parachute’s, we are in a similar position. Provided everyone understands where the trust and the liability lies, and provided those relationships are correctly defined, so that they can be tested in court, and provided that the arrangements that are in place are understood, we have a basis on which we can proceed. The quite detailed, technical arrangements, which I would suggest we as legislators are not equipped to either foresee or handle at the time, can actually be dealt with in a way that allows innovation, spontaneity and creativity, but within a fixed framework of law that is suitable to the purposes.

If I may say so, that is why I am so excited about the Bill. I think it shows that the Government are embracing a better way of structuring our society that allows for freedom, but within a fixed institutional framework that does not seek to intervene too much. That is why I reject new clause 9. It is very well intentioned, but for the reasons I have set out, I personally cannot accept it today. If the Government wish to achieve a similar intent, they will need to choose a different form of words at the fore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I am always happy to engage with the industry on the basis the hon. Gentleman describes. I am more than happy to include that in our continuing discussions, and it is right that we should continue to have that discussion with the insurance industry.

[Mr Baker]

I say as gently as I can to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that the problem with amendment 21, as I said earlier, is that the Government cannot accept it in its current form, however long or short it is, because it is phrased in terms of operating systems. I think the hon. Member for Middlesbrough accepted that earlier. Should the Government wish to look at the function of the amendment and bring it forward on Report, I implore them to choose different words.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. Let me be even kinder to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun than I have tried to be already. Without wishing to put words in his mouth, I do not think that he is arguing for this precise amendment to be made to the Bill—it has been acknowledged that that is not the case. What he and others are arguing is that the spirit of the amendment might add to further consideration. I have said that I think it is important, in regulatory terms, that there is a commitment from manufacturers of the kind that has been described. I essentially agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe—I used to think that it was me and the Labour party against the free market liberals, but I am very impressed with and reassured by his contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I am going to be brief. I was in favour of a prices and incomes policy when even the Labour party had abandoned that. [Interruption.] I hear comments from behind me. I have been a protectionist all my life, and now it is coming back into fashion. The semantic points that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West made are good ones. As I said, we will take out the word “But”—as there are no ifs or buts with me, as yet. We will take a look at the other semantic points; there are bound to be those linguistic changes to a Bill.

The hon. Gentleman’s fundamental point was about the cost of software. If there was a catastrophic market failure—we are speaking about something down the line, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, for we do not know what the market looks like yet, but if we follow the hon. Gentleman’s advice we are already dooming it to failure—of course we would consider becoming involved. Were that to compromise the wellbeing of a large number of people who purchased automated vehicles, with all the consequences that might have, at some point the Government would need to take some kind of stand, but, if I may use an appropriate phrase, frankly I think we are at risk, Madam Deputy Speaker, of travelling roads as yet uncharted, let alone those we can reasonably foresee how we might journey down.

[Mr Baker]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way quickly, though I had produced a wonderfully eloquent summary.

[Mr Baker]

It was a wonderfully eloquent summary and I agree with a proportion of the Minister’s remarks, although not all of them. If we do end up in a position where safety-critical software updates to cars are both frequent and expensive, there will be a catastrophic market failure, and we will be banning automated cars and sending engineers back to college.

[Mr Hayes]

Exactly. I have nothing to add to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman’s assiduity does him great credit. It is perhaps worth saying that the clause defines a series of terms and concepts vital to the functions of the proceedings in the Bill. The only reason it does not apply to Northern Ireland is that this is a devolved matter: motor insurance is devolved in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Definitions

[Mr Baker]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 8, page 6, line 5, leave out “electrical”.

This amendment would allow the Bill to cover hydrogen fuel used to power internal combustion engines.

I would not dream of pressing the amendment to a vote, but I would like to probe the Government on their position. Currently, the definition of “hydrogen refuelling point” is

“a device intended for refuelling a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from hydrogen”.

My amendment would leave out “electrical”. The reason for that is the evidence we heard from witnesses in oral evidence.

I put it to a witness that we could have a dual-fuel vehicle, or indeed a vehicle propelled entirely by hydrogen, just as we could have liquefied petroleum gas vehicles and keep the internal combustion engine. I know it is not very fashionable at the moment—I know we are mostly looking at battery power, possibly with an option on fuel cells—but it is important that we ought not to unnecessarily constrain the use of hydrogen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

As I said, I am always prepared to receive advice on these matters. I acknowledged in advance that my hon. Friend has great expertise in this field, so far be it from me to flatly disagree with him, but perhaps I am about to get another chemistry lesson.

[Mr Baker]

Of course when we burn hydrogen the result is water. However, when we took evidence on this subject, we were cut lamentably short for entirely understandable reasons. The witness was really talking about dual-fuel vehicles, which run on both petrol and hydrogen. We were not able to explore fully what it would mean if vehicles were to run with internal combustion engines entirely on hydrogen. The reason behind dual-fuel vehicles is that there is a limited supply of liquefied petroleum gas around the country, so vehicles still need to run on petrol. However, if there was hydrogen everywhere, one might potentially dispense entirely with petrol in such engines. Vehicles could then run entirely on hydrogen and they would never burn a carbon-based fuel.

[Mr Hayes]

Despite the overtures from my hon. Friend, the witnesses were singularly unenthusiastic about hydrogen, particularly Mr Willson. He said:

“I believe hydrogen is too far away yet to get consumers interested in or excited about it.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 18, Q31.]

However, it is clearly not too far away to excite my hon. Friends the Member for North West Hampshire and for Wycombe, but they are at the apex of excitement at all times.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Steve Baker

2nd reading: House of Commons & Carry-over motion: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

That is interesting, and I love the way the hon. Gentleman has framed that for me. The point I was trying to get to is the one I made, which is that the language of clause 4 must be tight enough to ensure that, should it be tested in court, we do not find that the law fails as a result of describing software as the “operating system”, which is the wrong term. I dread the day that this House starts regulating how software is written. Much as I respect my colleagues in this House, the last thing I would want to see in legislation, having been a professional software engineer, is detail of how to write software, particularly safety-critical software. I will be grateful for having done my MSc in computer science when the House is able to have a detailed discussion of Object-Z, but that day is far off. We should not be legislating for how safety-critical systems should be engineered.

I have two other points on the Bill. I am glad we are now legislating for offences relating to the use of lasers. I was an engineer, rather than a pilot, but I can see the issue. The Government are wise. If anything, I would ask whether the penalty is harsh enough given that we could be talking about airliners with large numbers of passengers.

My final point is about drones. Having looked at the legislation on remotely piloted vehicles, I think there is a danger of constraining things not just too tightly but quite wrongly. If we were to regulate drones such as the DJI Phantom, which are hobbyists’ toys for taking video footage, as if they were aircraft, we could end up ruling out perfectly legitimate uses—for example, the man who uses a drone to inspect tiles on rooftops so that he can reduce householders’ bills because, by doing so, he can avoid the expense of putting up the scaffolding that he is now legally required to use before going up on a roof. By investing in a drone and flying it near someone’s home, this person saves the householder a fortune, without endangering them. Were we to regulate these things as aircraft, he would not be able to do that.

[Mr Hayes]

Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we are consulting on those matters, and his contribution to that consultation is eagerly awaited and most welcome.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful for the addition to my workload.

I wish to make a final point about diesel, which has been mentioned. I drive a diesel vehicle, and I am conscious that there is a good argument to say that so many of us are in diesel cars because Governments encouraged us to drive them, in the interests of reducing CO_2. Let us not compound one bad incentive with other poor incentives. Let us just be a little more humble about what we encourage people to do in large numbers and leave room for experimentation and for markets to work, provided always that people carry the costs of their own decisions.

Fuel Prices

Debate between John Hayes and Steve Baker

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)]

The House has long known that I am energy personified, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister has now recognised that fact and given me this important new role. I am equally delighted to speak on these matters from the Dispatch Box for the first time, although, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), said, he and I have already met in debates in Westminster Hall and in Committee.

Several hon. Members have rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). My hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) have all made the point that he has done the House a great service in allowing us to have an important debate on an important issue, which affects so many of our constituents.

Fuel is of fundamental significance to consumers, and it is in our mutual interest to ensure that motorists and businesses are confident that they are being treated fairly and that, when the cost of crude oil comes down, reductions are passed on transparently and without unnecessary delay. This Government have eased the burden on motorists by £5.5 billion by not implementing the policies of the previous Government. I do not want to make this debate an unnecessarily partisan one—although my emphasis is on the word “unnecessarily”. The truth is that, had we put in place the previous Government’s plans, prices would be higher.

The shadow Minister pointed out, with typical decency, that we have also put in place the rural fuel duty rebate scheme, which is cutting the price of fuel in very remote communities by 5p a litre. The Government will continue to monitor the effectiveness of that scheme and, obviously, if there is more to say on that matter, I will come to the House and say it.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that the retail price of fuel is affected by a wide range of factors, including crude prices, tax and duty, the exchange rate, and the cost of refining and bringing the product to market. In the end, the effect on consumers is a profound one, and it is because I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and others that this is a matter of social justice that I am delighted that we shall have eased the burden on motorists by approximately £5.5 billion between 2011 and 2013. Average pump prices could be approximately 10p a litre lower than if we had implemented the previous Government’s so-called fuel duty escalator in 2011-12.

The petrol and diesel retail market in the UK is subject to the same legal constraints and the same framework governing competition and trading standards that relate to businesses in general. Price differences in different areas are likely to reflect local supply and demand, and may differ depending on fuel transportation costs and different retail business models, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, among others, has said.

Oil prices rose this year owing to international developments such as uncertainty in the middle east and north Africa, and continued growth in demand. The Wheatley review and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions are looking at these matters, as the House will know. The House will also know that the UK works with the G20 to enhance transparency in the oil market, as recommended by many contributors to the debate. In the end, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, this is at least as much—and arguably more—about retail practice as it is about the oil industry. The oil price is, of course, set by global markets. The key causes of high prices this year are well understood.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Many Members have talked about the volatility of oil prices and the functioning of the markets. There is a correlation between the volatility of oil prices and US Federal Reserve monetary policy. Before the end of Bretton Woods, there was hardly any volatility in the oil price; it has been introduced only subsequently. If there is a secular trend in oil prices at all—priced in, say, gold, which happens to be a scarce commodity—it is downwards. I do not think we are paying enough attention to the US exporting both inflation and volatility through US Federal Reserve monetary policy.

[Mr Hayes]

That is a typically incisive and insightful contribution from my hon. Friend. I will say a little more about volatility, but the House will have heard his argument. It seems to me to be as impressive as his arguments usually are, and I shall certainly give further consideration to the matter.

In the spirit of being open-minded—this is, of course, an immensely open-minded Government—let me mention the Wheatley review into LIBOR, which is considering whether benchmarks or indices in other markets also need to be looked at. It will, of course, include this market and it aims to publish its conclusions by the end of September. I look forward, too, to the recommendations from the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, and the Government will consider how to take those forward in the G20 and how to implement them in the UK to ensure oil price benchmarks are not open to manipulation. As a result of this debate, however, and of the arguments made by my hon. Friends and others, I will write to the Financial Services Authority about the concerns raised here today. There is no point in our having these sorts of debates if they do not inform and inspire Government policy. In the case of this Minister, they will do just that.

It is absolutely right that we enhance transparency in the oil and commodity markets. The Government continue work to improve the functioning of the global market and to reduce price volatility through engaging with key oil-producing countries to promote investment in oil production and responsible behaviour in the market—the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) a few moments ago. To that end, we have also championed a new charter for the International Energy Forum, and we will continue to monitor closely the impact of initiatives being taken in several other G20 countries, including Germany and Austria, to improve fuel price transparency.

Demand is another issue, and reducing the UK’s long-term dependency on oil and petroleum products is a Government priority. This includes developing ultra-low-carbon vehicles, high-speed rail networks and renewable heat incentives. We are working within the G20 to reduce oil demand globally—for example, through the work to reduce fossil fuel subsidies. At the same time, it is important to ensure that the market is well supplied, and we are working with the International Energy Agency, including on post-Libya stock release.

The Office of Fair Trading call for evidence is central to our considerations today. I encourage all Members to submit evidence to the OFT, and I know that many who have spoken in the debate will do just that. Of course we must not intervene until that call for evidence is complete. My Department believes that changes in the price of crude are indeed passed on to the pumps, although, as is clear from the data, there is a considerable time lag. There is certainly a case for greater transparency, about which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will know, the OFT has specifically asked for evidence.

In summary—this is not my final summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, but merely my preliminary summary: I did not want to dampen the enthusiasm with which my speech was being met—I strongly welcome the OFT’s decision to call for more information about the way in which the petrol retail market works.

As has been said, the OFT has said that it will consider whether reductions in the price of crude oil are being reflected in falling pump prices; whether the practices of supermarkets, which have been mentioned by a number of Members today, and major oil companies may be making it more difficult for independent retailers to compete with them—I shall say more about that in a moment; whether there is a lack of competition between fuel retailers in some remote communities in the UK; and whether the concern about price co-ordination and the structure of road fuels markets that has been expressed by other national competition authorities is relevant in the UK. That is a first step, and reflects the fact that, to date—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South—no clear evidence has yet been provided to demonstrate that there is reason for concern about competition in the market. Nevertheless, the inquiry is welcome: I want to make that absolutely clear.

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, and other Members with an interest in the subject, to engage with the OFT’s study—I have no doubt that my hon. Friend was going to do so anyway, but I wanted to place that on the record—and to participate fully, as my Department will: I commit myself today to ensuring that that happens. What is important at this stage is for Members or their constituents who have evidence relevant to the scope of the OFT's call for information to make it available before 17 October.

As I have said, my Department’s analysis shows that changes in the wholesale price of crude, both increases and decreases, are passed on, but I shall nevertheless ask my officials to look at the matter again and revisit their analysis, as a direct result of the debate and my hon. Friend’s wider contribution to discussions on this subject.

The important issue of what might be called “fuel deserts” was also raised today. The OFT is seeking evidence relating to the decline in the number of independent petrol stations and the rise of hypermarkets. That too has been mentioned by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. The Government have taken tough action in the past to address the potential of local monopolies. For example, this summer, following an OFT investigation, Shell gave undertakings to sell a number of its petrol stations because of concerns of this kind.

Some Members mentioned the problems of rurality. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) represent rural constituencies, and I am quite deeply affected by the problems myself. I know from my own experience in Lincolnshire that rural communities can be disadvantaged when the number of petrol retailers falls and journeys to obtain petrol and diesel become longer. I will also ask my officials to look at the relationship between storage capacity and the declining number of retailers; the picture is mixed because of the size of tanks that are kept in different places, but I am interested in the issue.

Independent petrol stations are often located in more rural areas, and can provide a valuable service for local communities. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), there is concern about the effect on rural resilience in the event of further closures of such petrol stations. As I said earlier, the OFT has signalled that it is seeking evidence relating to the decline in the number of independent petrol stations and the rise of the hypermarket retailers, to which the hon. Gentleman and others referred. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) for emphasising the effect that that has on his constituents. I must make it clear again that the Government have not been reluctant to take action in the past, and would be happy to do so again if the evidence legitimised such action.

Earlier this year, my Department commissioned a study of the retail market for road fuels, to develop further our evidence base on the size and shape of the market and our knowledge of the impact of the structural change to the market over recent years. I will write to interested Members with details of the findings in due course and share them with the OFT. That is what it says in my script, but I will do more than that: I will write to all Members of the House, because I know that all Members are interested in these matters. We will keep the whole House fully informed of the steps the Government are taking.

As a result of the arguments my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has made today, I will also instruct my officials to ensure that this study should include detailed analysis of how far people have to travel to reach their nearest petrol station, and how this has changed over time. He may count that as a significant victory for him and a tribute to the work he has done.

In conclusion—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Hayes and Steve Baker

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker(Wycombe) (Con)]

T9. Apprenticeships are being promoted vigorously by the Government, but what progress is being made on the higher levels and, in particular, on their quality?

[Mr Hayes]

Proust said:

“We do not receive wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey”,

and a journey from the age of 16 to higher learning can be a journey down a practical pathway—no longer a cul-de-sac but a highway to higher learning. To that end, I am working to create 25,000 higher apprenticeships during this Parliament; when I became a Minister, there were 180.