GKN Aerospace, Kings Norton
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope that we hear some strong statements from the Minister about what the Government are going to do.
Last year, not only had Melrose sought to assure the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee of its intentions, but it provided a series of similar undertakings to Ministers. In the Business Secretary’s statement to the House on 24 April, one year to the day before this debate, he declared:
“I look to the management to honour its commitments in both the spirit and the letter, and to create a strong future for GKN, its employees, its suppliers, and the industrial sectors in which it will play a major role.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 760.]
He also said:
“Melrose has also agreed to meet my officials and me every six months to provide updates on its ownership of GKN.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 759.]
In the light of all that, one might have expected Ministers to have told the company this month that, rather than close the Kings Norton site, they expected it to honour the spirit, as well as the letter, of the undertakings it had given. Instead, in a written answer to me on 16 April, I was informed that the Secretary of State had been told that the closure plan was the result of
“an internal strategic review by GKN”
and that it was
“a commercial decision for GKN Aerospace and not in contravention of the deed of covenant agreed between BEIs and Melrose.”
If Melrose has indeed been meeting the Secretary of State’s officials every six months as promised, has anything been said in those meetings about the future of the Kings Norton plant being in doubt? If so, what alternatives to closure did BEIS urge on Melrose, and what was the company’s response? If not, what on earth is the point of these six-monthly reviews if they are not expected to cover an issue as important as the closure of a plant?
Of course, BEIS is not the only Department with which Melrose entered a deed of covenant last year. The Business Secretary told the House that the Ministry of Defence had received undertakings that would
“prevent the disposal of the…business, components of a business or assets without the consent of the Government”.—[Official Report, 24 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 759.]
The Kings Norton plant produces windscreens and windows for military as well as civilian aircraft, so can we assume that the MOD will now step in? Apparently not. A written answer from that Department on 15 April told me that, as defence work is being “moved, not stopped”, the Secretary of State for Defence would not be issuing a note of concern under the covenant.
I assume the Minister spoke to his colleagues in the MOD before this debate, so can he tell me whether GKN has made an unambiguous commitment to retain in the UK all defence-related work undertaken by the Kings Norton plant? What has GKN said about how it plans to dispose of the Kings Norton plant after closure?
No doubt the Minister will tell me about the various investments GKN has announced in its aerospace and automotive divisions at other plants in the UK, and I welcome those investments. However, the first that employees at GKN Aerospace in Kings Norton knew of the company’s plans to close their plant was when they were told on 5 April 2019. That is simply not good enough, and it is a breach of faith with what Melrose said last year.
If the company believes there is a profitability issue at Kings Norton, should not Ministers be telling it that the spirit of the undertakings given last year means that it should first discuss the situation, and the options for the future, with the trade unions representing employees before decisions are made, rather than simply informing them afterwards? When Melrose said last year that its mission is “to power” the Government’s industrial strategy to secure “the best outcomes” for employees, suppliers, customers and the wider economy, is it not reasonable to ask what assessment it has made of the impact of closing the Kings Norton plant on the local economy? My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made that point earlier. Has BEIS asked the company that question and, if so, what has been the company’s response?
I do not believe that GKN now telling the Government it has conducted a strategic review is satisfactory. Do Ministers accept the need to press the company further? How did GKN reach this decision? What alternatives have been, or still could be, considered? What, in detail, is going to happen to the defence work carried out at Kings Norton, and how does GKN plan to dispose of the asset that is the Kings Norton plant? Finally, what impact, in practice, will closing Kings Norton have on the industrial strategy in Birmingham?
Without clear and convincing answers on those points, I ask the Minister to join me and other hon. Members in saying that Melrose and GKN should think again.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I welcome the Minister, Andrew Stephenson, on his first run out.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman cannot intervene from the Front Bench.
Andrew Stephenson
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As they did during the merger of GKN and Melrose, the Government continue to act to ensure that mergers result in the best outcomes for the United Kingdom. Our merger regime is a key part of the UK’s dynamic economy. Mergers and takeovers can bring great benefits to consumers and the economy. The UK has the third highest foreign direct investment stock in the world, behind the US and China. That investment means jobs in growing sectors and more opportunities to develop our skills base, and it helps companies to deliver products and services at competitive prices.
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson
I think the hon. Gentleman is wandering a little from the issue under discussion.
Bill Esterson
I think he might be. Suffice it to say that that deal has been rejected three times, on the first occasion by the largest margin by which a Government have ever been defeated in the known history of Parliament. Quite apart from the undesirability of what is in that deal, I think we should probably move on. I have a sixth sense that it will come back for fuller debate on another occasion.
The Minister made a very strong case for cross-border co-operation, for maintaining the regulation and for a mutual recognition agreement so that we can maintain protections for consumers and businesses. I hope she will confirm that when she responds to the debate.
I am not able to confirm with absolute certainty that the revocation will deliver what the Government intend it to do. We have to accept the Minister’s word that it will do so. I have no reason not to accept it, but I do not have the technical expertise. The papers in front of us do not allow me to say any more than that, so I have to put on the record my reservations and those of my party. As ever with the statutory instruments we are being asked to approve, there is no impact assessment. The lack of published consultation responses also makes it that much harder for us to analyse what we are being asked to approve.
Businesses and consumers need confidence and certainty. I note from the explanatory memorandum that a number of business organisations were consulted. Perhaps the Minister could provide more detail on what they said. She has done so on previous occasions, so I look forward to hearing what was said in those consultation discussions.
The regulations that we are being asked to revoke are designed to prevent discrimination based on location. They exist to stimulate the internal market of the European Union and to support the free movement of goods and of free trade through the digital sector. They address the possible restriction on competition between businesses across the European Union market and ensure that consumers have access to the best offers, prices and conditions of sale. They do not limit trade for consumers to goods and services in their own country—that is a very important distinction—and that is precisely what has happened since the regulations were introduced at the start of last year. They also prevent website redirection away from businesses that are not in the consumer’s member state.
If we leave with no deal, the draft regulations will revoke the geo-blocking regulation completely. No deal would end the protections for UK businesses and consumers, as they would not be protected in the European Union. The Minister set that point out very well in her opening remarks. As she said, retaining the regulation in the UK would mean that we could be blocked but would not be able to block against discriminatory practices from within the European Union. Those points are well made in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.4 makes the point that
“if we did not revoke the Geo-Blocking Regulation, UK traders would continue to have obligations to EU customers under the Regulation while UK customers are unlikely to receive any of its benefits.”
Paragraph 2.5 states:
“To avoid this asymmetry of enforcement obligations in the EU’s favour, we are revoking the…Regulation in the UK.”
I accept those points, which is why we will not oppose the revocation.
The revocation of the regulations would at least minimise discrimination, but that is a bare minimum and a low base from which to operate. It would be far better not to have to do this and to have mutual recognition after we leave the European Union and continue with an arrangement that protects our businesses and consumers against discrimination as far as possible.
The draft regulations are an example of what no deal means. After yesterday’s latest failure by Members from across the House—but from some parties in particular—to be prepared to find a compromise to avoid no deal, we are one day closer to the dire prospect of that outcome. Of course, the Government should have taken no deal off the table, so that MPs did not have to do so, to avoid what in all honesty are desperate, last-minute no-deal preparations. That is the only way to describe what we are being asked to do today, 10 days before a likely no-deal departure.
The CBI was one of the business organisations referred to as having been consulted. Although I do not have its response to the consultation—I hope to hear it shortly from the Minister—I do have what it wrote to the Prime Minister, in a joint letter with the TUC, about the consequences of no deal. Is it not refreshing to see the leaders of the employers’ largest representative organisation and the leaders of the workers’ representative organisation working so closely together, signing a joint letter to the Prime Minister? That is what leadership in this country looks like and it is a great shame that we have not seen more of it from politicians.
The joint letter makes it clear that no deal would be disastrous for the country—for businesses and for workers—and that also applies to the draft regulations, should they ever be needed. On a no-deal outcome, the CBI-TUC letter states:
“Firms and communities across the UK are not ready for this outcome. The shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come…avoiding no deal is paramount.”
They describe no deal as causing “reckless damage”—[Interruption.] It is a shame that those Members commenting from sedentary positions on the Government Benches did not support some of the alternative options available to us yesterday. The TUC and CBI call for a plan B, which has been rejected by those Members who have been heckling me for the past few seconds.
Offshore Wind Substations: East of England
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that tidal energy is not being used to its full potential? The power that tidal turbines can bring to my constituency—in Strangford lough, in particular—proves beyond doubt that substantial amounts of energy could be harnessed and diverted, and further consideration should be given to perfecting the offshore and renewable energy sources in our constituencies. We think we could do more with it, as he has done.
Rural Post Offices
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. He is right in what he says and I recognise that. I was going to come on to this later, but I will respond directly to his point now. The Government are the sole shareholder in the Post Office. It is right that we work with the Post Office, challenging it where necessary, and with constituency MPs and the community to make sure that we can deliver the right services for the community. As I always do when speaking about post offices at the Dispatch Box, let me say that we are committed to working with MPs and their communities, and we will continue to do so in order to maintain the branch network we have and to try to serve communities as best we can.
Outreach and mobile services are highly valued by the communities they serve, as they offer all the same services as bricks-and-mortar branches. They have been successful in taking key services such as everyday banking to customers, giving them vital access to cash in areas where there are no bank branches nearby. The Post Office directly contributes towards the costs of those outreach services, in conjunction with the postmaster running them, whose parent branch benefits from the transactional income accrued from the visits to outlying communities.
My hon. Friend raised important points about the specific challenge of running a post office in communities where seasonal trade and variation plays a significant role. I know that the Post Office listens to the community and the postmasters in St Ives by taking a more flexible approach to opening hours requirements across the year. That will allow branches to be more sustainable through the leaner, off-peak seasons, when their post office and associated shop has fewer customers. As he said, the issue was taken up by Lord Gardiner in his meeting with Paula Vennells, the Post Office’s chief executive officer, on 4 December. I understand that there will be a follow-up meeting with her in the constituency in the New Year to discuss this and other matters further. I am confident that this ongoing, frank and sustained engagement is the right way to proceed, so that the issues can be understood and a solution be provided for the benefit of postmasters, businesses and residents of St Ives.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some misconceptions about the Post Office’s franchising programme, particularly the assumption that franchising means closures and the downgrading of services. Those criticisms are misplaced. Post Office branches are not closing, but are being franchised, either on-site or by relocating to other high street locations. Franchising is nothing new; almost 98% of post offices across the UK are successfully operated by independent businesses and retail partners. Moving the directly managed Crown offices to retail partners has been instrumental in reducing losses in that part of the network.
My hon. Friend raised an important point on postmasters’ remuneration, especially for everyday banking services. As these services have developed and increased, I know the Post Office is looking at ways to better recognise the effort required of its postmasters for banking transactions. In fact, the Post Office has recently notified postmasters that their rates for banking deposits have been increased this year. I understand that the Post Office has now entered negotiations with banks on the next banking service agreement. The Post Office has reassured me that it will do all it can to ensure that postmasters are better remunerated for the vital services that they offer. I should add that the Post Office is picking up vital services in areas that banks have left. It is right that the Post Office does its best to make sure the banks accept the responsibilities involved and the work that post offices are doing on behalf of those communities and, we hope, properly remunerate them.
My hon. Friend also raised an important point about postmasters who cannot exit the business because of the absence of alternative operators to take over their branch. Although that is an operational matter, I assure him that the Post Office is taking it very seriously. As of November 2017, there were more than 450 branches of that type across the network. To help the remaining postmasters, the Post Office has extended the network transformation resignation timeframe to March 2020. That means that all parties can continue to work together to ensure that no communities are left without the invaluable post office services that they rely on. The postmasters affected will continue to receive both fixed and variable remuneration throughout that period. Where solutions are found, the postmasters concerned can leave while still qualifying for their leaver’s compensation.
My hon. Friend raised some particular issues relating to his constituents. I am not aware of some of the detail of those cases, but we are meeting in the new year, so I look forward to discussing those points and seeing how we can move forward.
I reassure my hon. Friend that all post offices across the network, including rural branches, are of the utmost importance to the Government. We recognise their value and importance, and we will continue to honour our manifesto commitments so that post offices can thrive and remain at the heart of our rural and urban communities. I thank my hon. Friend again for making his points, and for his hard work in support of access to post office services for his constituents. I assure him that I will continue to work with him and the Post Office to make sure that the constituents of St Ives receive the post office service that they deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I am sure the House would like to wish all postal workers the best for Christmas and the new year, and to thank them for getting the parliamentary mail through.
Question put and agreed to.
Budget Resolutions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had a very good debate this afternoon, and there have been some great contributions from all parts of this House. Members can call me old-fashioned, but I thought that the role of the Minister replying to the debate was to address the issues that have been raised in this debate. He has now been on his feet for nearly six minutes, and apart from some reference to two Conservative Members, he is making just a general speech, which he could have done in an opening speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The Minister has got time to address the issues, and I am sure that that is where he will take us now.
Robert Jenrick
That was unfair, because I am addressing the points that have been raised by Members from all parts of the House. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) may not like the answers, but I am providing them. With respect to the digital services tax—it is a tax that has been mentioned by numerous Members across the House—we are the first major country to do this, and it will raise in excess of £1.5 billion, ensuring that, in our thriving economy, our tech-friendly economy, those who generate value from UK users will pay a fair contribution to tax. We look forward to publishing more information and to the consultation on that, which, clearly, hon. Members may wish to take part in.
We chose in this Budget to invest in the long-term economic infrastructure of the country—a subject that has been raised by a number of my colleagues—raising investment levels in this country to the highest sustained level in my lifetime. That is the mark of a mature economy, which is not just spending everything on immediate consumption, but spending money for long-term investment. Public capital investment in this country will be £460 million a week higher under this Government than it was under the previous Labour Government. We have heard some of the ways that we will spend that. We will spend it by increasing investment in our roads—in every type of road. A number of colleagues from across the House—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr Jones, you are testing my patience. You did say, “Call me old-fashioned”, well, old-fashioned usually has values with it, and you are not showing the best values right now. Come on, Minister.
Robert Jenrick
We are investing in a whole range of different infrastructure projects, which will make a huge difference to the future of this country, from the productivity pinchpoints to investing in potholes. We did hear from a number of Members today a slightly snobbish attitude to investing in potholes, but these things matter to ordinary people. They matter to people in my northern constituency of Newark. They matter to people in Walsall, in Halesowen, in Stoke-on-Trent, in Mansfield and in towns that we have heard about here and, in fact, in towns across the whole country, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Robert Jenrick
Well, you have not read the Red Book, because we put £10 million—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. It might be helpful if you both addressed the House without having a personal debate between the two of you. Come on, Minister.
Robert Jenrick
We have heard in this debate that this is a Budget for high streets and town centres. With great respect, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said that we had borrowed one point of the Labour party’s five-point plan for the high street, and that is true, we did—we are committing to pilot a register of empty shops—but we looked at the other four points in the plan and, frankly, they were thin gruel. We decided that we could do better, and we have.
We are providing a 30% discount to small businesses, affecting 90% of our retailers across the country, and we have created a £675 million future high streets fund—a competitive fund for people across the House and across the country to bid into to secure between £5 million and £25 million to transform their towns. I was surprised that Opposition Members repeatedly criticised the idea of having more homes in town centres, because that is not what the public say. We want vibrant communities in our town centres, and we want to make it cheaper and easier to create shops, workplaces and homes there.
We also heard about great ideas in the Budget. We have to grow the economy in all parts of the country. For example, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) about the special economic area that we are creating in Teesside, working in partnership with the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). That has the potential to transform investment in that area.
Albert Owen
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he was responding to the debate, but three Members from north Wales raised the bid for the north Wales growth deal. The Chancellor only mentioned Wales twice in his Budget, although the Minister said that it was for the whole United Kingdom. Will he address some of the points made by some of the Members from Wales?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I can assure you that that is not a point of order, but you have got it on the record.
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman later, but time does not allow now. As he knows, the Budget does commit to a north Wales growth deal. I shall be happy to discuss that further with him.
To conclude, this is a Budget that looks to the future. It is optimistic about our economic potential. It invests in the science and innovation that will drive the economy forward in the years ahead. We have a choice: either we can follow the tired ideas of Opposition Front Benchers, pursuing policies that we know have failed in the past, a ship sailing on yesterday’s wind, or, like Conservative Members, we can look to the future with confidence, and we can champion entrepreneurship, innovation and the wealth creators in society. This is a Budget that seeks to inspire a new generation to succeed, to excel and to prosper, with policies that will make the economy and the country stronger. I urge Members in all parts of the House to support the Budget in the Lobby tomorrow.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mike Freer.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Claire Perry
As Members will know, the Bill has received very broad and strong cross-party support during its passage through this House. I thank all of those who have spoken, who have worked behind the scenes, who have lobbied and who have voted for a very important piece of legislation. I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who is not in her place, for her excellent stewardship of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which contains Members from all parties, and for her continued support on the Bill. The Committee did some excellent work during the Bill’s pre-legislative scrutiny.
I also extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and the Labour Front-Bench team for their extremely constructive approach to this Bill and for helping us to develop an amendment that we will come on to debate in a moment.
First, we must consider the amendment that was made in the other place about what will be done to protect consumers when the price cap comes to an end. That is an extremely important question. As the Government have made clear, the price cap is a temporary intervention to protect consumers on standard variable and default tariffs while other reforms continue apace to bring about the conditions for effective competition in the retail market. I understand the concerns, which have been raised by Members from all parts of the House and by Members in the other place, that there is a risk that some features of the market may remain that will need to be addressed. For instance, as the energy market is reformed, it is absolutely vital that the protection of vulnerable customers in this market is kept under review, and action taken if necessary to afford those customers the protections they need.
There are also concerns about the possible return of practices such as tease and squeeze, which is essentially enticing people onto cheap fixed tariff deals only to move them on to higher tariff deals when the fixed period ends. I agree wholeheartedly that we must seek to end those practices. However, introducing a requirement such as the Lords amendment seeks to do, which essentially commits us to an indefinite price cap, is not the appropriate solution. Instead, the Government propose amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, which will ensure that Ofgem must conduct a review before the end of the price-cap period into the pricing practices of suppliers and, in particular, identify whether there are categories of customers who are currently paying, or who may in future be at risk of paying, excessive charges for standard variable and default tariffs.
In reviewing the practices of suppliers and identifying whether consumers are paying excessive charges, the regulator must consider whether there are consumers who will be excessively negatively affected when they move from fixed rates to standard variable tariffs—the tease and squeeze problem—and also whether vulnerable customers continue to require protection. If it is the regulator’s view that protections are indeed required, the amendment says that necessary steps must be taken to provide those protections, using a broad set of existing powers under the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989.
It is the Government’s view that amendment (a) therefore futureproofs something that we all care so strongly about in this place—the protection of consumers from excessive charges, particularly on SVT and default rate tariffs—and rightly provides in the Bill the necessary impetus and discretion to the regulator to consider the most appropriate response to those excessive tariffs under its existing powers.
Erasmus Plus Programme
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has already used his 15 minutes. I want him to get to the end of his speech, but if he keeps taking interventions, we will not get there. We do have other speakers who wish to contribute, so I am sure that he will want to get to the end quickly.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have probably been too generous in taking interventions.
It is not just the university exchange programme that is important. The European Voluntary Service has allowed young Europeans to travel, 50% of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds. In many respects, EVS was the forerunner of the International Citizen Service, which we now run in this country. The question is how the ICS will integrate into the new programme that goes forward.
Erasmus is currently being negotiated for renewal, but there are no clear guarantees from the Government on its future, and that is adding great uncertainty to the sector. Although the Prime Minister gave assurances at the end of last year that Erasmus would be maintained until the end of the current financial arrangements, there have been few assurances beyond that.
In December, the Government confirmed that they value international exchanges, and that, in the event of a no deal, the students could continue with these exchanges. In the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, she indicated that that was her position. The first question that I asked in this Chamber when I arrived here a year ago was whether we would continue with the programme post 2020. The reality is that we have not yet seen a strategy from this Government of how that will be achieved.
Last month, the European Union proposed an outline of its strategy. It proposed that countries can buy into the new programme, but outlined that non-EEA countries and non-partner countries can only take part as third countries. The Government must use their position now to make sure that, in the education council, they are negotiating for that clause to be loosened up. I guess I need to ask the following questions. Can the Minister tell me what discussions he has had in the education council to ensure that the clauses will allow third countries to participate at a decision-making level, and not just at a buying-in level with no ability to make decisions about the targets of the programme? What instructions has the Minister given his officials to negotiate those respective clauses, which are being negotiated at the moment, on a statutory basis? What discussions has he had with his counterparts in Europe, and what co-ordination has there been with the Department for Exiting the European Union to ensure that, as we are not likely to be an EU member or an EEA member and clearly not a candidate or partner country member, we can still take part as a former member that wants good relations with the European Union?
I raised many of these questions in the Westminster Hall debate. How will our current programme co-operate with our International Citizen Service programmes? How are we setting out our strategy? I have yet to see the answers to those questions. I fear that, without proper negotiation, like Canada we will have to buy in access. Canadian undergraduates do not have access to the full exchange part of the programme and Canadian youth organisations cannot initiate programmes and activities. With the headquarters of so many international youth organisations based here in the UK, such as the girl guides, we risk their future if we do not allow them to initiate programmes here in the UK. To resolve these issues will require great clarity and direction, and an acknowledgement of the great benefits of the programme.
In the meantime, if the Government hope to maintain a youth and university sector that is open to co-operation with other universities across Europe, they should start by offering a full and comprehensive assurance that Erasmus+ and all the related programmes, including the European Solidarity Corps that takes over from the volunteering part, will be maintained beyond 2020. The Government should seek to represent Britain’s interests in the council and reach an understanding that if we are unable to negotiate access, we will ensure that Britain creates a scheme that is equivalent and equally financed.
Finally, I should like to emphasise a few of the key statistics of why the Erasmus scheme is important. Some 16,000 students, young people and other staff from the UK go on the scheme every year, and it is important we keep it open to staff as well as students. If staff cannot exchange their ideas, they cannot promote or co-ordinate it and so make sure students go on it. As I mentioned, 50% of those on the scheme are from disadvantaged backgrounds, and almost 50% are in the youth programme, yet it equates to only 10% of the overall cost. The whole programme is important.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to negotiate continued access to the Erasmus+ programme and all its successors, not after Brexit day but now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I advise Members to speak for up to about eight minutes each.
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsMonday 30th April 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 View all Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 April 2018 - (30 Apr 2018)
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am bringing up the rear, as they say.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you.
I am delighted to speak in support of this Bill. It focuses on a temporary managing of the energy market, which has not been managed well enough, which is why we are talking about the whole concept of this Bill. I will speak briefly, and only to amendments 7 and 9. I do not disagree with the sentiment of, and intention behind, these amendments, and above all it is, of course, vitally important that we look after the vulnerable in society, in particular in terms of energy, and especially when the market is deemed not to be functioning properly.
It is crucial that people can keep warm and cook the right food and that they are comfortable and well, but this Bill already addresses that. It places a new set of duties and powers on Ofgem to protect consumers on variable and default tariffs, and Ofgem already has a duty under the electricity and gas Acts to have regard to the need to protect vulnerable customers. We should also remember that in 2016 the Competition and Markets Authority made an order, following its energy market review, to put in place a safeguard tariff for customers on prepayment meters, and about 4 million people have benefited from that. Last year, Ofgem took the decision under its principal duties in the electricity and gas Acts to extend the safeguard tariff to customers in receipt of the warm home discount.
Ofgem must have regard to the need to protect vulnerable customers when exercising its functions under these Acts, and I would argue that that is already being done. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) that it is crucial that Ofgem uses its powers and uses them well and that its feet are held to the fire in this respect—to use an energy term. It also introduced an enforceable vulnerability principle into the domestic standards of conduct, making it clear that suppliers must do more to treat vulnerable customers fairly, and this must be done.
Realistically, therefore, these amendments seem to be overkill, placing new obligations on Ofgem that are not necessary; however, it must use the powers it has. Also, as many Members have said, the powers in this Bill are only temporary: the price cap operated by Ofgem is not intended to last beyond 2023, and I fully support that. By contrast, Ofgem’s powers to protect vulnerable customers under the electricity and gas Acts are not limited.
It is necessary to bring in the fairness that this Bill has right at its heart. Its main aim is to place a new set of duties and powers on Ofgem to protect customers on standard variable tariffs. That is what this is really all about; far too many people have been taken for a ride. In 2016, about 11 million people were paying a total of £2 billion over the odds for their energy; that is simply not right. Individuals are said to be paying about £300 too much. Many people falling into this category are the elderly, and I am speaking on this Bill in part because Somerset has a particularly ageing population, and they have been taken advantage of, as indeed have many young people who are in rental accommodation because they are tied to one form or another of payment.
We must not mess about any further with this Bill. We must be able to see the wood for the trees; we do not want to bring in another lot of suggestions and regulations that delay the Bill, because it is more important than ever that its measures come into operation this winter. It is essential that we protect the vulnerable, but it is not necessary to legislate further on vulnerability, as suggested by amendments 7 and 9. I hope that on this basis the amendments will be withdrawn.
Industrial Strategy
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I just remind people that we have a lot of speakers in this debate. Short interventions, please.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, which are rather illuminating. I wonder whether she could share with the House how her region managed to secure those additional resources, so that we could let our colleagues know about it. That simply does not seem to be the case right across Britain.
Now, there was also a clear failure in business support. The Government’s proposals recognised that we need both public and private investment. Similarly, the Labour party has pledged to mobilise £250 billion of lending through a national investment bank and a network of regional development banks. However, the Government’s proposals fall far short of that. I said in the House last year that sector deals, a £2.5 billion investment fund incubated in the British Business Bank and yet another review into encouraging SME growth were simply not good enough. There was a clear failure to recognise the impediments that many businesses face when attempting to access finance and, indeed, there was a failure to protect businesses more generally.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am reducing the time limit to five minutes.
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsTuesday 6th March 2018
(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 View all Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can I just help a little bit? We have asked Members if they can do up to eight minutes, and some people are stretching that, but the hon. Lady has just spoken and is intervening again. I know it is part of the debate, but I want to make sure that those wanting to speak at the end have not been sitting here for no reason.
Antoinette Sandbach
I will keep it brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that energy efficiency measures are key in this regard?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are 10 speakers left, so I suggest that they speak for six minutes each.