European Union (Withdrawal)
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
For once, the right hon. Gentleman has made an error and over-promoted me, but I thank him for his distinctive comments.
There is a serious point here: we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. I take that judgment seriously, as I know do colleagues across the House. The Government do not have not have a majority and we are in uncharted constitutional territory, so it is absolutely right and proper that we exercise our judgment in the interests of the country to avoid, at the very least, a no-deal Brexit. For all the right hon. Gentleman’s talk, we must exercise that judgment, and that is what we are doing. It is entirely responsible.
NHS Long-term Plan
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The Secretary of State is attending to the questions put to him in his usual courteous fashion, and I think that is respected. However, I gently point out to the House that this is the first of three ministerial statements today and that there is then further substantive business with which we want to make progress, so I gently encourage colleagues to be economical.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am heartened that Baroness Harding is looking at the staffing side of things, but she does have a mountain to climb. Let me remind the Secretary of State that the last time the NHS went out to recruit GPs, it ended up with fewer GPs at the end of the year than it had had before. That is not to mention the pension cap put in place by his former mentor—or maybe his current mentor—the former Chancellor, which now means that there is a problem with the retention of senior clinical staff. We can add to that list the immigration rules and pay ceiling. Is the Secretary of State lobbying the Home Office and the Treasury, particularly to deal with the £30,000 cap and the pension cap?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Points of Order
Debate between Meg Hillier and John BercowWednesday 19th July 2017
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice somewhat earlier of his intention to raise it. I am loth to quibble with the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable authority on matters parliamentary, as evidence by the well-thumbed tome on how to be a Back Bencher of which he is the distinguished author. That said, I am inclined slightly to quibble with him on his proposition that it is normal or commonplace, if a ministerial wind-up concludes early, for other Members to be invited to contribute. In my experience, that is not commonplace. I would not say that it never happens, because you can almost always find an example of something if you try hard enough, but certainly when I am in the Chair I tend to work on the assumption that the ministerial wind-up is indeed the conclusion of the debate.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the conclusion of this debate taking place earlier than listed on the Order Paper, although I am sure that he will readily accept that the Official Report—that is to say, the verbatim account of what was said; there is no question of misleading anybody—will show that the debate concluded a little early. The Chair does not normally allow a further Back-Bench speech, and—this is not directed at the hon. Gentleman; it is just a wider point—certainly not from a Member who had already made a substantial speech in the debate.
As for interventions, the hon. Gentleman, as the author of “How To Be An MP”—available in all good bookshops, and of which I am myself a noted admirer, as he knows—he will appreciate that a Member is free to take interventions or not. I note what he tells me—that the Minister said, “No, I can’t take interventions because I haven’t time”—but that is not something on which the Chair can rule. Sometimes Ministers can be a tad neurotic in these circumstances, it is true, as can sometimes, perhaps, shadow Ministers, but that is not a matter for the Chair. Whether the Member seeking to intervene likes it or not, the situation is as I have described.
Let me take this opportunity, in a positive spirit, to encourage all new Members—I am not sure the Whips would agree about this—to read the hon. Gentleman’s books on being a good parliamentarian. [Interruption.] “No!” says a Government Whip, chuntering from a sedentary position, in evident horror at what bad habits new members of the flock might pick up. I think that they are fine tomes. The hon. Gentleman has used his position as a Back-Bench Member to stand up for his constituents and to fight for the principles in which he believes. That has sometimes pleased his party and sometimes not, but that is what we are supposed to get here—Members of Parliament who speak to their principles and their consciences. That is a good thing, and, as he knows, I like to encourage it. In fact, when I was a Back Bencher, I had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding—I didn’t trust them and they didn’t understand me.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Department of Health accounts were finally laid before the House, after a week of to-ing and fro-ing that prompted no actual changes, as I understand it, to them. The Comptroller and Auditor General has raised some concerns about the accounts. I seek your guidance on two points, Mr Speaker. First, the accounts have again been laid late. Last year, they were laid on the final day on which Parliament sat; this time, they were laid only a couple of days before the final day. Secondly, what can we do to ensure that a Minister turns up to the House to explain the Department of Health accounts and address the financial concerns that many Members of the House, and not least the Public Accounts Committee, have about the Government’s handling of health finances?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who has put her concern on the record. It will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench, and I suspect that the contents of her point of order will wing their way to Health Ministers ere long. The truth of the matter is that there is no resolution of her grievance available from the Chair. The Select Committee on Health may wish to return to this matter if it is dissatisfied, and the Public Accounts Committee, of which the hon. Lady is herself the distinguished Chair, may wish to pursue this matter further. Realistically, I fear that that will have to wait until September, although if the hon. Lady—she is of course a London Member, and a very assiduous attender—is present in her place tomorrow for the summer Adjournment debate and wishes to expatiate further on her concerns, she may well find she is able to catch the eye of the Chair.
If there are no further points of order—I think that there are none—we come now to the presentation of Bills.
Bills presented
Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Bryant, supported by Holly Lynch, Stephen Crabb, Mr Graham Brady, Ms Harriet Harman, Mr Dominic Grieve, Jo Stevens, Diana Johnson, Tulip Siddiq, Lilian Greenwood, Carolyn Harris and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about offences when perpetrated against emergency workers, and persons assisting such workers; to make certain offences aggravated when perpetrated against such workers in the exercise of their duty; to require persons suspected of certain assaults against such workers which may pose a health risk to provide intimate samples and to make it an offence, without reasonable excuse, to refuse to provide such samples; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed (Bill 7).
Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Steve Reed, supported by Norman Lamb, Mr Charles Walker, Jim Shannon, Keith Vaz, Sarah Jones, Mr David Lammy, Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Marsha De Cordova, Caroline Lucas, Clive Lewis and Heidi Allen, presented a Bill to make provision about the oversight and management of the appropriate use of force in relation to people in mental health units and similar institutions; to make provision about the use of body cameras by police officers in the course of duties in relation to people in mental health units; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 November, and to be printed (Bill 8).
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Afzal Khan, supported by Joanna Cherry, Hannah Bardell, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Liz Saville Roberts, Lady Hermon and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 December, and to be printed (Bill 9).
Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ms Karen Buck, supported by Luciana Berger, Jess Phillips, Matthew Pennycook, Shabana Mahmood, Heidi Allen, Marsha De Cordova, Andy Slaughter, Alex Sobel, Kate Green, Diana Johnson and Clive Efford, presented a Bill to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to require that residential rented accommodation is provided and maintained in a state of fitness for human habitation; to amend the Building Act 1984 to make provision about the liability for works on residential accommodation that do not comply with Building Regulations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2018, and to be printed (Bill 10).
Points of Order
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. First, I can reassure the House that rulings on the dress code, which should be observed by Members if they wish to be called in debate, pose questions or, indeed, raise points of order, are a matter exclusively for me. That simply is the fact of the matter. They are not a matter for the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), although I always value his views, as I do those of all colleagues. Many Members will be aware that I have known the right hon. Gentleman for three decades, that I enjoy his company and that I can often be observed chortling at some of his literary and philosophical references in the course of his orations in the Chamber. Those orations are always enormously enjoyed, not least by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I rather thought that what he had to say on this matter was proffered in his characteristically jocular fashion. However, in so far as I could be said to have received an application from the right hon. Gentleman, by virtue of his pronouncement, for the role of style policeman, I can tell the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and all Members of the House that I have filed it in the appropriate place.
Secondly, it is of course for a Member, be they a Minister or not, to decide to whom to give way during a speech. That said, I am confident that no Member, in making that decision, would in any way discriminate on the basis of the attire of the colleague seeking to intervene, any more than he or she would do so on the basis of a Member’s age or gender. It would indeed be quite wrong of anyone to do so. I hope that that puts the right hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest and we can leave the matter there.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the House will know, responses to Public Accounts Committee reports are published in the Treasury minute. I am concerned that the publication date for the most recent Treasury minute was first delayed from late July to mid-September and that its current publication date is now 19 October. A number of reports—three in particular, namely the Committee’s forty-ninth report, “Financial sustainability in schools”, fifty-seventh report, “Capital funding for schools”, and sixty-third report, “Housing: State of the Nation”—will not have a response until the next publication date in December. It is extraordinary that the Government can delay responses to important reports by Committees of this House. That shows disrespect for the work of Select Committees. Could you look into this on behalf of the House, Mr Speaker, and urge the Government to get their skates on?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. She will know—it is implicit in her point of order—and other Members of the House will be aware that it is incumbent on Ministers to respond to reports of Select Committees in a timely fashion. That is not just a general exhortation; it is a quite specific and explicit requirement, which is a matter of time limits. It is not altogether and immediately obvious to me whether the time limit would be thereby breached, but if it would, that time limit should not be breached.
It is very important that we proceed in an orderly way in this matter and that Ministers treat not just the Chairs of Select Committees but Select Committees as a whole with appropriate respect. It is not for Ministers to decide that they will respond when they are ready; they must respond as required. If that does not happen, I know the hon. Lady, and I rather imagine she will want to draw attention to the issue and secure perhaps even a greater focus on the subject matter of the report in House time; and it would be very regrettable if, as a result of what might be called ministerial lethargy, there had to be a greater amount of time spent on the matter in the Chamber than perhaps those Ministers had themselves anticipated. The expression “shooting oneself in the foot” springs to mind.
Of course, as the hon. Lady will know, the Leader of the House is not only the Government’s representative in the House, but, very importantly, the House’s representative in the Government. I know the new Leader of the House, and I know how attentive to her responsibilities she intends to be, so I feel sure that she will be having a word with those Ministers to ensure that they satisfy both the letter and the spirit of the requirement imposed on them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
With exclusive reference to Dover, given that the Dover road does not go through Hackney.
Meg Hillier
It is not just the Dover district that is having these problems but businesses up and down the country, particularly in London and the south-east. I met small businesses in Hackney—not that far from Dover—on Friday. The reality surely is that the system is bust and that small businesses with a small turnover are being hit with huge and unsustainable bills, so what is the Secretary of State going to do to make life better for businesses in Dover, Hackney and around the country?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. This is about Peterborough and England, not Kilmarnock and Loudoun—or even Scotland. I am going to save the hon. Gentleman up for a later occasion. We look forward to that with eager anticipation.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
For many in my constituency, home ownership is but a pipe dream, with more people renting privately than owning their own homes. What steps is the Minister considering to encourage private landlords at least to offer longer tenancies for these very many private renters in London and in Hackney South?
Points of Order
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Public Accounts Committee has summoned witnesses from the Department for Communities and Local Government to come before it tomorrow to explain reports that the troubled families programme has not been achieving its aims. Since 5 October, my Committee has been asking the Department to release six evaluation reports on the scheme. After much delay, they were finally published on the Department’s website at 6 o’clock yesterday evening. The reports amount to 800 pages of evidence. I am very concerned that, with the tardy release of that important information, the Government are trying to obfuscate proper parliamentary scrutiny of an important Government flagship programme and the money spent on it.
I seek your support and guidance, Mr Speaker, on how we can ensure that Ministers are reminded of the importance of providing proper information to this House so that we can carry out our task for citizens and taxpayers in scrutinising the Government’s business.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, both for her point of order and for her courtesy in providing me with advance notice of it. There is a clear expectation that Government Departments should co-operate fully with Select Committee inquiries, not least inquiries of the Committee of Public Accounts, and that they should furnish information in a timely fashion. That does not appear to have happened in this case. If for any reason there is a problem, the Department should communicate it promptly to the Committee so that it can, if it so wishes, adjust its schedule. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s concerns have been heard on the Treasury Bench and that they will be conveyed to the relevant Ministers. Meanwhile, she has made her point clearly, and she has done so on the record.
Quite how the hon. Lady and her Committee wish now to proceed in the light of the untimely provision of a vast tranche of information is, of course, for them to consider. Upon the whole, one would expect that a Committee would undertake its work without also considering Chamber devices for scrutiny of Ministers. The two, however, are not automatically and necessarily mutually exclusive, so if at some point the hon. Lady, a member of her Committee or any other Member wishes to probe a Minister in the Chamber on the substance of the issue or the reason for what appears to be an excessive delay, it is open to them to seek that route. I make no promise as to whether it would be successful, but it is open to Members.
The key point is that Committees hold the Government to account, and it is up to the Government to co-operate with the Committee, not only in accordance with the letter, if you will, but in accordance with the spirit.
Prayers
Debate between Meg Hillier and John BercowThis information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Treasury questions on Tuesday, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), the Chancellor of the Exchequer cited the recent report by the Public Accounts Committee on corporate tax as having given Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs a “clean bill of health” with regard to the tax settlement with Google. That is, in fact, wrong. I could not believe it at the time, because I could not believe that the Chancellor could have made such a mistake, but I have checked the record. In contrast to what the Chancellor said, the Committee raised a number of concerns about the settlement and said that we could not conclude whether it was a fair deal. It was a “don’t know”, rather than a clean bill of health.
I am concerned that a senior Cabinet Minister could have cited a cross-party report of a Committee of this House so wrongly. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen again.
Mr Speaker
Preventing recurrence is very difficult in the House of Commons, and I am not sure that the Chair, any more than anyone else, can commit to that. The hon. Lady has taken the opportunity to correct the record from her vantage point and that of the Committee which she chairs. That fact will be communicated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is for him to decide whether, in the circumstances, he wishes to say anything on the matter. If he does, so be it. If he does not, knowing the hon. Lady as I do, I have a sense that she will use the resources available to her to draw attention to the matter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
10. What assessment he made of the effectiveness of the Major Projects Authority prior to January 2016.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
No one can doubt the comprehensiveness of the hon. Gentleman’s response, for which we are extremely grateful.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Justice have been critical of the Government’s lack of understanding of the knock-on costs of their reforms to legal aid. Is it not now time that the Government reviewed them to ensure that cost shunting does not happen and that effective justice is available to those who need it?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Ah! We are graced with the presence of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, from whom we will now hear.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has just extolled the virtues of his Department’s support for people with mental health problems, but in reality we know that too many people with mental health issues are coming through the Work programme and not getting work. Is it not time that, for the benefit of those people and of the taxpayer, some of his Department’s money was devolved to local areas so those people can get better support and get into proper jobs?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently remind the House that the question is not about staff per se in the NHS? The question is about people made redundant and subsequently re-employed. Attention to detail tends to profit a Member.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Those of us on the Public Accounts Committee have heard about the industrial scale of this revolving door of people going out of one job and into another with a fat redundancy payment. Does this not show that the Government have lost their grip on what is truly important in the NHS, which is paying front-line clinicians to serve patients?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The Minister can always have a cup of tea with her right hon. Friend if any further clarification is required.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents rely on the sub-prime lending sector to manage from day to day and to build their credit record. What conversations has the Secretary of State’s Department had with the Financial Conduct Authority in its efforts to improve that sector and to make sure that my constituents get a good service rather than, in some cases, being driven into the hands of illegal moneylenders?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As one of the MPs representing Hackney, which 10 years ago was one of the worst performing boroughs in education, I want to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to our excellent exam results, with more than 60% of pupils getting five A to C grades at GCSE, including maths and English. Mossbourne community academy gained a result of 89%, which is exceptionally good. However, within that there were real challenges for pupils sitting the English exam. At BSix college, for example, for the previous three years, 83%, 86% and 83% of pupils respectively gained a C or above, but only 36% did so this year—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are extremely grateful. We need short questions in topicals.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Hackney South and Shoreditch has much to commend it, but it is rather a long way from Newcastle upon Tyne Central, so we will leave that one for another day.
Industrial Action
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. It is also absurd to suppose that we can accommodate everyone unless questions and answers are significantly shorter.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has consistently refused to address the issue of low-paid part-time workers and the extra contribution they will have to make on a pro rata basis. Does he deny that those people—many of them the lowest-paid women working in the public sector—will be more affected than others?
Points of Order
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. I fully understand the frustration expressed about the short time now available for discussing the first group of new clauses on longer sentences. The right hon. Gentleman will know that on the one hand it is in effect up to Ministers when to make statements to the House and that on the other hand I am bound by the terms of the programme motion agreed yesterday by the House. I can only advise him to make his point to the Procedure Committee whose Chairman is lurking, doubtless with intent, at the back of the Chamber, and has now progressed into the main body of the Kirk, for which we are grateful. Others will no doubt also have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
Because this is an immensely serious matter, I would in addition appeal for extreme brevity from the Front Benches—a brevity that we did not witness yesterday—in the debates today, and from Back-Bench colleagues, so that matters of great importance to those outside the House can be properly considered.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since August I have been in contact with the Home Office about the timing of today’s statement and talking about a cross-party meeting. Last Wednesday I asked the Prime Minister when the gangs report would be published and he said, “When it’s ready.” Yesterday I got an answer to a named-day question which said it would be published soon, yet on Sunday night on The Guardian website it was announced that it would be presented to the House today, and in today’s papers the detail was revealed. I ask your views on this and wonder whether it may be time for the House to throw in the towel and look first to The Guardian website for information about what the Government are doing, rather than expect the courtesy of the House being informed first.
Mr Speaker
I reiterate what I have said before, which is that Ministers should make key statements to the House first. I would never advise any Member to throw in the towel, as the hon. Lady puts it. There is significant evidence of important statements starting to be made first in the House. Ministers know that when that does not happen, there is a strong possibility of an urgent question application being granted. That did not use to happen; it now happens on a substantial scale, but I think it would be fair to say that achieving progress in these matters is not a matter of an isolated act, but rather of a continuous process. The point of order demonstrates that this is very much work in progress. We have no reason to be complacent. That point is addressed not least, as it has to be, to those on the Treasury Bench.
Electricity Market Reform
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We are pleased that he agrees with his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), about the need for reform. The Government have already sent some signals about the future shape of the UK energy market.
The Secretary of State should be congratulated on standing up to the fuzzier elements of his party with his U-turn on nuclear, which he no longer happily describes as a “failed technology” but says is an essential part of the UK's getting off the “oil hook”. The Government’s eventual acceptance of the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change in its fourth carbon budget was largely welcomed by most people, even if his colleague the Business Secretary was described as “squirming in his seat like a schoolboy” at the Cabinet meeting which discussed it.
However, the Government have failed to deliver on many fronts since the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change took office. Recent ill-judged Government intervention in the energy market has already led to a hiatus in energy investment and uncertainty across all sectors. The solar feed-in tariffs fiasco destabilised the solar sector and sent shockwaves through other renewable sectors. Companies, including RWE, are considering pulling out of the UK because of the uncertainty caused by the Government in the investment landscape. That was underlined by the Pew Environment Group’s report, which showed that the UK dropped from fifth to 13th in a global ranking of countries for green investment. We have seen a green investment bank failing to deliver the necessary investment now and being criticised by the CBI director general, John Cridland, who warned that the bank
“certainly won’t work if it needs the Treasury’s permission to blow its nose.”
There is a question mark over whether the Secretary of State’s proposals will deliver. The track record is not good. We believe that the Government must meet some key tests if reform is to work. A new market needs to be greener and to create certainty for industry, room for innovation in emerging energy solutions, and crucially, a good deal for consumers both as users of energy and as taxpayers, and it must deliver the necessary investment in the UK energy sector for security of supply.
In the White Paper, we have a mixed bag of measures. There is an emissions performance standard—a policy that the Energy and Climate Change Committee considers, at the level set,
“would have no material impact and is therefore pointless.”
I could say rather uncharitably that that sounds a little like a summary of Government green policy. Certainly, it is not popular, and already industry is puzzled about exactly what it will achieve. If we are to have an emissions performance standard, the Secretary of State needs to explain to us why it is any more than green window dressing. How will the transition to carbon capture and storage be accommodated within this measure, when we are still awaiting not only the sign-off on project 1, but the future Treasury and European funding for projects 2, 3 and 4?
The proposals also include a carbon floor price, although we knew about that because it was announced in the Budget independently of these proposals—a running theme for the Department, which most of the time seems to be run by remote control from 11 Downing street. The Department has only just woken up to the impact that this tax grab on industry and its potential to export businesses and their emissions overseas will have on the UK industrial landscape. Better late than never, but it is catch-up.
Two measures are being consulted on. A contract for difference will pump public money into supporting more expensive energy production—a mechanism which we hear from the Secretary of State will encourage other users into the market, but with such complex administration, we worry, as do many businesses, that small suppliers and new investors will struggle to keep up. We also see proposals for a capacity mechanism and energy auctions, the devil of which will be in the detail. The right hon. Gentleman should expand on which technologies will deliver most benefit, what the costs to the UK will be, how the consumer will afford it, and how we will avoid expensive stranded assets in a new dash for gas.
Investors need confidence, certainty and clarity. The White Paper could help, or it could herald an era of overly complex and overlapping measures, paid for by the taxpayer, that will lead to higher than necessary energy bills. Customers are currently getting a raw deal, so any change must support the consumer. The existing big six energy companies will undoubtedly need to provide in this era of new energy generation, but we need to free up the suffocating oligopoly that stifles real competition from new energy investors. The prize is driving down the cost of new energy generation and prices and increasing real choice for consumers. The Secretary of State, who has been insouciant in the face of rising energy bills, should stop worrying so much about his next meeting with the big six chief executives and start worrying a bit more about the consumer.
Will the Secretary of State please tell us exactly when the legislation will come before Parliament and when he expects the reforms to be implemented? We already have the delayed Energy Bill circling Parliament and a renewables road map announced today: he cannot keep stacking up policies like waiting aircraft. I am pleased that he is convening a group to look at decentralised energy, but can he give us more details on that? So far his Department has been rolled over by the Treasury at every turn, so could he tell us what these changes will cost the taxpayer and what he is doing to protect the public from unreasonable price rises? How will the Government decide when to conduct energy auctions, and how will he ensure that all players will be able to bid in order to reach this new dream world he talks of? Apart from the now delayed green deal, what is his strategy for reducing energy demand?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State is bringing her remarks to a close, because she has exceeded her time.
Meg Hillier
We cannot afford the dithering, delay and postponement that has characterised Government policy so far. We want to support and work with the Government to achieve these outcomes, but we need answers on those points from the Secretary of State.
Points of Order
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Channel 4 news yesterday evening, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change described 50 kW as “an enormous amount of power. That’s the equivalent of 1,500 domestic roofs.” That is just plain wrong, and either this is startling incompetence by the Government or they have based their review of solar feed-in tariffs on a completely false premise. The review is already causing uncertainty; these comments make it worse. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you can use your good offices to ensure that the Secretary of State clarifies the Government’s position to this House and to the public as quickly as possible.
Mr Speaker
As the hon. Lady knows—and as far as I am concerned, this is very fortunate—the content of ministerial statements or answers is not a matter for the Chair. If a Minister has made an incorrect statement, there is a procedure for setting the record straight, and that will be well known to all Members on the Treasury Bench. Meanwhile, the hon. Lady has put her concerns and her interpretation of the facts very clearly on the record, and that statement and interpretation will have been heard by Ministers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Order. There is huge interest, as colleagues can see, and I want to try to accommodate it, but we must have brief questions and brief answers.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the list that the Secretary of State just read out, one would think that he sees himself as Action Man, but we heard this week that he describes himself as Tesco Man. Last time I questioned the Government about green investment, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), reassured the House that plans for the green investment bank would be unveiled in the spring. Yesterday, I read that the Secretary of State has lost out to the Treasury and that this much-vaunted green investment bank is to be a fund with nowhere near enough resources to generate the £200 billion necessary for investment in green technologies. The question is whether the country has lost out. Given the impact on British business, job creation and the climate, a properly functioning bank cannot wait, and this confusion is very unhelpful to British business. Will he tell the House what is happening?
Points of Order
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, to which I would make two points in response. First, as he knows, an urgent question application was submitted on the matter—if memory serves me correctly, by the hon. Gentleman himself. That urgent question was not granted and the House will know that the Speaker is not expected to give reasons as to why UQ applications are not granted and, in fact, is expected not to do so. In those circumstances, it is not really proper for an hon. Member, who may be disappointed by the decision, then to try to raise it as a point of order instead. I say that on this occasion, but I am sure that it will not be necessary to say it again.
The second response to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very assiduous contributor to our proceedings, is that on Wednesday he will have an opportunity, or at least the House will, further to probe these important matters, which I accept are of enormous interest to a large number of Members, and more particularly to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of constituents across the country. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, today the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change published a written statement dealing with significant issues for the future supply of energy, particularly as regards tidal technology and nuclear power, in the United Kingdom. I share the concern that it was not an oral statement; the House should have had the chance to question the Secretary of State.
Mr Speaker, you have been a good champion of the House, and of Back Benchers in particular, when such information is leaked to the national newspapers. I was surprised to read in great detail about the written statement in the national and Welsh papers on Sunday. I hope that you will take the matter up and find out whether Ministers in devolved Administrations were consulted on this important information being leaked.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The last point that she highlighted is a matter on which I can make no comment, because I am simply not in a position to know the answer to the question that she raised. I am grateful to her for saying that I do my utmost to ensure that the rights of the House are paramount. It will not have gone unnoticed over the past 16 months that, on issues on which it is perhaps thought that there should be an oral statement but none is forthcoming, there are frequently urgent question applications. This Chair has been inclined to grant them regularly; indeed, one was granted today.
My third point is that the form of statement made by a Minister—that is, whether it is written or oral—is a matter for the Department. It might help the hon. Lady to be reminded that the House has invited the Procedure Committee to look into how Government announcements are made to the House. She may wish to contact the Committee with this example and mention her dissatisfaction. She may also wish to submit further evidence as part of the Committee’s inquiry. I hope that that is helpful to her and the House. I am grateful to her, and to other hon. Members, for their points of order.
Speaker’s Statement
Debate between Meg Hillier and John Bercow(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want sedentary gestures from the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to help him. The matter is not one for the Chair. The information is now firmly in the public domain. Of course we are all in favour of the speedy composition of Committees with important scrutiny work to do, and the Committee to which he refers, which he has himself chaired with distinction, is an important case in point.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are very keen that Members of the House should always be factually accurate. On Tuesday 22 June, in answer to questions, the Deputy Prime Minister cited my constituency and said that it had an electorate of 52,000. In fact, on 6 May the electorate was 72,920. I would hope that you, Mr Speaker, would remind Government members of the importance of being factually accurate, when they have all the resources of Government to enable them to quote accurate figures, not figures plucked from the tops of their heads.
Mr Speaker
My response to the hon. Lady’s point of order—I respect her for raising it—is that, as the Speaker, I am keen on accuracy, but it is not my responsibility, from the Chair, to enforce it. However, she has registered her views—which, I sense, was an important part of her purpose.