Conflict Decisions and Constitutional Reform

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Coffey]

On a point of order, Mr Weir. I am surprised that it is parliamentary to suggest that Parliament has been bribed, because that implies corruption. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to make that suggestion—that people took bribes to vote a particular way.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

I think that the hon. Gentleman was making a debating point. I do not think that he was suggesting that Parliament as a whole was bribed in any way, and I do not think that that is a point of order.

[Paul Flynn]

I mean bribed by political favours. The full story of this is available. Is it not astonishing that on this matter—these are the most important decisions that Parliament takes—we are still to be denied the full truth of what happened? The Chilcot report will be published in expurgated form, and many of the reasons why we went to war, many of the influences, will not be included. Will not the impression left behind, if that happens, be that the Chilcot report is a cover-up by civil servants and politicians to protect their own reputations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gray]

You are supposed to be giving way.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Mr Allen]

This is a rather important issue, Mr Weir, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is agitated about it. If he wishes, I can make a case even on the back of what has happened in Iraq this week, with thousands of people dying and with individuals being executed on television for the benefit of people with particular views. These are really serious issues, so I would like to explain how this Parliament and this Government can work together to ensure that on similar, very serious occasions, we get this right in a way that perhaps we have not before. Again, we have made no outrageous demand that not a soldier should be deployed anywhere at all without the wise words of this House—of course not. We have made five reports to Government and the House, trying to get a clear resolution of this issue.

We have had three or four wars during the time we have been trying to get Government to come to the table and make an agreement that will take us all forward together, united as a nation in the most difficult circumstances we are ever likely to face. Have we been tolerant? One could argue that we have been far too tolerant.

In our first report, we suggested—this is not outrageous language—that the Government should

“bring forward a draft parliamentary resolution for consultation with us among others, and for debate and decision by the end of 2011.”

Similarly, the Government responded to our second report by saying:

“we hope to make progress on this matter in a timely and appropriate manner.”

That was in September 2011.

Our third report concluded:

“The Government needs to honour the Foreign Secretary’s undertaking to the House to ‘enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action’”.

That was not me or my Committee, but the Foreign Secretary. He still is the Foreign Secretary, and one hopes that his words will come to pass. Our report continued by saying that the Government should

“do so before the end of the current Parliament. In the absence of any other timetable, this is the one to which we will hold them.”

Let us move on to the fourth report on this issue by a Select Committee of this House—my Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. In September 2013, after the House had debated the Iraq question, we called for the Government to

“provide a comprehensive, updated statement of its position on the role of Parliament in conflict decisions.”

Again, the language was hardly inflammatory. The report went on:

“We also recommend that it precisely details the specific steps which will now be taken to fulfil the strong public commitment to enshrine in law the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action.”

That shows a Committee trying to make the system work for everyone’s benefit.

Finally, in March this year we published the fifth report, on which the Minister may like to comment in his speech. We drafted a resolution—a draft resolution means that the House and the Government can discuss it, change it and make it more workable if we have failed to make it as workable as possible. We produced a resolution that set out the process we could follow in order to get approval from the House of Commons on future conflict decisions. We called on the Government to consider the resolution and come forward with a revised draft by—we were getting a little frustrated, so specified the time—June 2014, with a view to having the House agree a resolution by November 2014.

We are now in June 2014. So far, we have received no Government response, but I hope that we get one this month. Knowing the Minister as I do, I hope very much that it will be a positive, creative and constructive response. I hope it will be in a form of words that can take us forward for perhaps 50 or 100 years, and will agree with us on a sensible way in which the House, its Members having been duly elected by the public, can be involved with the Executive, who have a vital and necessary interest in sometimes being able to move swiftly and expeditiously on conflicts that we would hope to avoid in other circumstances. I hope that the Minister has had the chance to prepare, and will give us some good news today on how we can go forward together on such a vital issue.

Just to show how forgiving I can be, I am going to let my friend the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) intervene.

[Mr Allen]

You talk too much, James, that is your problem.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Mr Gray]

All I did was to seek to intervene at a crucial point in his speech. The hon. Gentleman’s entire thesis seems to be based on the fact that he did not approve of or agree with the Iraq war. My question to him is simple: if indeed he is basing his entire report and thesis on that fact, how could it be that, of all wars in the past 250 years, the Iraq war was the only one in which there was not one but three substantive votes in this place before the deployment of troops? If his answer is that he does not like the way in which his party whipped its Members, and all the cajolery, bribery and other things he mentioned, I am afraid to say that that has absolutely nothing to do with going to war; it is to do with processes in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

As the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) said, the vote on 29 August was one of immense significance. It was the first time for centuries that, a Prime Minister having come to the House of Commons to suggest that we go to war, Parliament rejected that suggestion. It is extraordinary; had that decision gone the other way, and had we found ourselves opposing Assad in Syria—although there are three sides there—we would now be on almost the same side as the ISIS rebels. Is it not crucial that we learn that if we are to go to war, we should rely not on a Prime Minister writing his page in history, full of hubris and vanity as he takes the decision, but on the good sense of 650 Members of Parliament?

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we proceed, I must say that interventions are becoming very long. I appreciate that these are complex matters, but will Members please keep their interventions short? There will be chances for you to make speeches later on.

[Mr Gray]

On a point of order, Mr Weir. As you will have guessed from my interventions, I had intended to contribute to this debate, but I have just had a message from outside that my stepdaughter has collapsed and is in difficulty. I had intended to express my view, but if the House will forgive me, I will push off and sort her out.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

That is perfectly understandable.

[Mr Allen]

Our debate is lesser for the absence of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I am sorry that we will not have more chance to debate these issues today, but as we are in the middle of an exchange that will appear in The House magazine, I am sure that Members will be able to read his views. Best wishes for his stepdaughter’s speedy recovery, too.

I will avoid the lure of the clear views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on Syria other than to say that, in a democracy, decision making always benefits if we allow the voices of elected representatives to be heard. Whether we wish to take advantage of that advice, which comes in many different forms and from many different directions—a synthesis takes place—is a matter for the Executive and for the Government. Let us hear those views, and let us define a process that allows that to happen sensibly and appropriately. I look to my party colleagues, who may or may not soon be in government, to ensure that the issue will not go away. Sadly, armed conflicts will not go away, and it is much better to be prepared and to have a position ahead of time so that we can try to resolve what might be a problem in the future, rather than wait until a calamity happens and have to react in a crisis. Although it is hard to say so when we see awful pictures, particularly from Iraq and Syria at the moment, believe it or not this is a moment of relative quietude for the involvement of our country in which we can make sensible, sober and careful judgments about how to involve Parliament and Government in this most horrendous and responsible of decisions.

I will now move on to my Select Committee’s other report before the Chamber today. The report is on the need for a constitutional convention. The report was timely when it was agreed by the members of the Committee who are present, and it has become even more pertinent as time has gone by. With every moment that passes, as we come closer to the referendum in Scotland, and as other issues related to the whole concept of the Union and devolution start to appear on our agenda, the need to work that out becomes ever more pressing. How difficult it must be for Ministers living the day to day, the red boxes and everything else, to take a pace back and try to anticipate problems, but we need to do that in government and in Parliament. At the moment, there is a sense of, “Well, let’s just wait and see what happens in the Scottish referendum, and then we’ll react and respond.” That diminishes our position because it will be seen as a reaction to events, rather than a decision based on a principle on which we can all agree.

I believe that we can all agree on certain key principles. I take great strength from the fact that all the Union parties in Scotland—the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Lib Dems—have signed up, not to every dot and comma of a common position but to a sense that there should be greater devolution. They all have their different views. My party is lagging behind a little at the moment. Believe it or not, zooming by on the right-hand side of the debate has been the Conservative party, which is putting many of us to shame with its proposals on devolution for Scotland. The Lib Dems are there with their strong traditional views on serious devolution, too. A debate is going on, but all three parties are pointing in the right direction and share a common platform of greater devolution, which gives them great strength ahead of the referendum. Had they adopted such a platform after the referendum, people would have laughed, depending on whether the vote was yes or no.

Such a demonstration needs to be echoed in the United Kingdom. I believe that the leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Lib Dems should similarly get together and make a simple one-line statement to the effect that, as principles governing our United Kingdom, we believe in Union and in devolution. That should not be after the event but now, and I think it would underpin much of the debate between now and the referendum. It would make the position believable for all of us. Rather than being an expedient because someone is shouting or has won a vote, we would be talking about devolution because we believe in it as a principle.

The Union and devolution are two key principles for our governance, and I would love to see that position put into the public domain. If the parties agree on nothing else, even if they do not agree on the detail, agreeing on those two principles would be immensely strengthening. Why? Because we would then separate the visceral separatists—those who are driven by hatred and dislike—from the rational devolvers, such as me and perhaps most people in this room. I am glad you cannot participate from the Chair, Mr Weir.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

I am strictly neutral.

[Mr Allen]

I know these things may come back to haunt me later.

To be serious, though, many of us—even people sitting in Nottingham, as I do—feel that Whitehall telling us what to do and when to empty our bins, and not allowing us to get on and run our affairs, is an unacceptable imposition in a democracy. Many of us work away in our own way to make the case for rational devolution, wherever we are. If we do not have rational devolution, where do the rational devolvers go? Some of them become attracted to nationalism and see it as the way forward. It is ludicrous that we do not say to such people, and to people such as me in the east midlands, or whatever nation or English region we may live in, that we can run our own affairs.

How do we do that? I have some views of my own, but why do we not have a constitutional convention? Why do we not say that there has been a very serious schism? I hope that that schism starts to heal, but it will heal only if we take serious heed of how we can devolve power not just to Scotland, not because it is a reflex and not because it is a response but because we believe in it. The way to demonstrate that belief is seriously to consider devolution in England. That is one of the things that could come through in a constitutional convention.

There is no one in the House of Commons to whom the Minister takes second place on devolution. If there is one person in the House who has done more for devolution than any other, it is him. Long may he continue. Those Trojan, individual efforts of will and drive need a process. I hope he will be with us for many years, but just in case he is not, we need a structure that allows devolution to take place because, regardless of party, there is a means for it to do so.

Fundamentally, if the English get devolution, it then becomes believable not as an expedient for every other nation but because it is seen to be a principle and something that cannot be taken away. I wish that were not the case, but to prove that devolution is a principle we need to be clear and honest about English devolution. Creating a convention does not have to be a formal thing after an election; it could be an informal thing before an election and it could start to outline where we can go and how we take this process forward.

My Select Committee has been looking seriously at what that means for England and how it might shape things. We have not always come to complete unanimity on it; there are many different views and many different parties. However, we managed to get a sense of direction, if nothing else, and recently we produced our report on the codification of the relationship between local government and central Government. I hope that, as an individual Back Bencher, I can produce a Bill on that matter shortly, which will go a bit further and define independent local government of the sort that is commonplace in every other democracy. People are not like us. We are the weird one in the democratic family, in not having independent local government; in being unable to raise revenues locally to meet our budgets; and in being told what to do by a massively over-centralised Whitehall, in this case. That does not happen in many of our neighbours in north America, Europe and elsewhere in the democratic family.

We can get up to standard—up to modern democratic standards—by doing those things. If we do that; if it is written down and cannot just be thrown away on a whim by the next Government, or the one after that, or the one after that; and if it is part of what we are and what we believe in, which is union and devolution, it will be something that will see us through for a long, long time. That was the heart of what we were trying to say as a Select Committee—working together—when we put forward the paper on our proposal for a constitutional convention for the United Kingdom.

One of the key things that we opened up in our other report on codification of local government was how we finance things. We can have all the nice codes written in Brussels, which get shipped over here every so often and go straight into the waste bin in Whitehall, but if we are really to do this thing we need, of course, to have powers—they are relatively easy to define—but we also need to have finance.

At the moment, local government is financed. Where does that money come from? It comes largely from the income tax payments of every individual in this country. Maybe it is not possible to devise a system whereby we can link income tax to local government. Oh, yes—let us look up the road, and we see that they are doing it. Again, Scotland has led the way, winning over even the Treasury to the concept of assigned local income tax. Right now, it is only 10p of the income tax, but the foot is in the door; it is possible to go further and indeed the Scottish Conservatives have demonstrated how that can be done.

Such an offer—the current offer—has been made to our good friends in the Welsh Assembly. I hope that they will bank that, I hope that they will pick it up and I hope that they will be greedy and come back for more, because all they would be asking for would be to retain some of the income tax in their own nation and put it to work. It would not be income tax on a different rate; it would not be without equalisation; it would not be collected in a different way; and it would not involve setting up a local income tax bureaucracy. It would just be income tax the way that we do it now, but using the equalisation mechanism. If we wanted to use one in England, it would be the Department for Communities and Local Government, which would take that allocation—the amount of money currently spent on local government, paid for by income tax—and equalise it there, before distributing it to the local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a fine example of the trials and tribulations of the job of chairing these sittings that you, Mr Weir, had to endure in silence some parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). You would have been entirely justified in breaking new ground by asking to intervene on his speech at certain points.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

The Chair remains neutral.

[Paul Flynn]

It must be painful for you to do that, Mr Weir. The Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) chairs, brilliantly and with great wisdom, contains the entire political spectrum, from the deepest red to the densest blue. Somehow or other, the reports, with compromise and good sense from the Chairman—he acts as a peacemaker and compromise seeker—turn out to be unanimous. The Committee’s work is not on the immediate, the current or the things that are in the headlines of the day, but on issues that are of deeper importance when we take a broad look at the way things are going.

Going to war is one of our gravest responsibilities, and there have been few times in our history when Parliament has been divided on such decisions; it is normally well united, with the possible exception of the Boer war, which was rightly opposed at the time by Lloyd George and others. I believe, however, that there has never been a division in opinion in the country as there was in 2003, when at least 1 million people—some say 2 million—marched in the streets. Some 139 Labour Members, six Conservatives and virtually all the Liberal Democrats voted against that war. The nationalist parties were passionately opposed, as was public opinion, and public opinion was right. It was in advance of opinion at the top of the political tree at the time.

The decision to go to war was reported with equal enthusiasm by the leaders of both the major parties, and that is the great difficulty. There is a splendid book by David Owen that I commend to people, if they have not read it, about hubris in politics. He writes about what happens to Prime Ministers when they hear the drumbeats of war. It is their opportunity to escape from the dreary minor matters of the day and write their page in history, which is usually, sadly, a bloody page. They become different people, and we can see it. They walk in a different way. They strut and stand with a Napoleonic stance. They talk in a different way, dredging up all the Churchillian rhetoric and speaking in these great rounded phrases. It is the most exciting time of their lives. In David Owen’s view, they become at least a little mad, and their judgment is in question. That thesis is absolutely right.

By example, by convention and by the fact that MPs were allowed to vote in 2003 because the then Government were convinced as to how we would vote—we would not have been allowed otherwise—a principle has been established and cannot now be reversed. Power has moved from the exercise of the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister to a decision by the House of Commons. Thank goodness for that. As I said in an earlier intervention, it is far better to trust the wisdom of 650 Members of Parliament with differing views than the overexcited hubris of a Prime Minister, who might be motivated by vanity or seeking a place in history for himself or herself. It is a major advance.

Returning to the heroic work done at the time by my hon. Friend, it is good that we are reminded of what happened during that period. Many of us regard it as the most important vote—or votes as it turned out—that we will take part in during our political careers, even if we are here for many more years. There was huge pressure at the time to vote a certain way. The political establishment was united in going one way. The Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee, the Government and the main Opposition were absolutely united that we had to go to war to defend ourselves against what turned out to be non-existent weapons of mass destruction that threatened to attack us within 45 minutes. We were not deciding whether there would be an Iraq war, which was going to happen anyway. Saddam was going to be deposed. We were deciding whether to collaborate with George Bush in that war. George Bush said that he did not want us and made it clear, publicly, that we were not needed, but somebody wanted to take us into war and we deserve to know the truth about what happened between the then Prime Minister and President Bush.

The reasons why we need to know are crucial. The first is for the loved ones of the 179 brave British soldiers who died in that war. They died because we in the House of Commons made a decision in March 2003. They would not have died otherwise. Many of their relatives have expressed, some of them publicly, the torment of not knowing whether those soldiers died in vain. They deserve some closure for their grief. That is why every word and syllable of the letters should be published.

The second reason is our soldiers. They are entitled to know that when Parliament decides to order them into battle and to put their lives at risk that that decision has been made on the basis of the most rigorous examination of the evidence and not on untruths or politicians’ vanity. The other people who need to know are the hon. Members of this House. Unless we can discover what happened in 2003, are we in a position to judge new wars now?

However, there was a worse decision than the one in 2003 and it was made without a vote in the House. In 2006, we moved into Helmand province on the basis of a claim that we were going to clear up the opium trade and to perform a bit of reconstruction and with the hope that not a shot would be fired and that we would be out in three years. There was a debate about that in this room, during which one Member said that it would be like the charge of the Light Brigade and would stir up a hornets’ nest. This time it was:

Bush to the right of them,

Blair to the left of them,

Holler’d and thunder’d,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die,

Into the valley of Death,

Into the mouth of Helmand,

Drove the five thousand.

The number of soldiers killed in combat in 2006 before we went into Helmand was two. The number now is 463, which is three times the number who died in the charge of the Light Brigade. We should look not only at declarations of war, but at what happens when we escalate wars. If we had had a vote on going into Afghanistan, it would have been supported by perhaps 95% of Members, but it was the escalation that did the great harm. We must take that into account when we look to war.

The extraordinary events of 29 August 2013 have changed Parliament for the better and represent a change of view in that no longer do we have absolute trust in the claims of Prime Ministers in such situations. History will tell us the real tale of what happened during that week, but there was unanimity among the leaders of the three main political parties at the beginning of the week that we needed to go into Syria. Soundings were taken, meetings were held by the political parties and different views were expressed, all of which meant that a majority could not be obtained in the House. Part of the reason was the collapse of faith in the decisions taken on Iraq and possibly on Helmand. The House made terrible blunders. MPs made those blunders and 620 soldiers died as a result.

We must have the courage to face the truth and to decide our future. We are still obsessed—it happens at the top of all parties—with punching above our weight as a nation, but doing so militarily means that we spend outside of our interests and we die beyond our responsibilities. We would be greatly helped as a nation and our soldiers would be well served were we to accept our position in the world. We are not the masters of the universe or the leaders of empires, as we were in the past. We should escape from the idea that every crisis in the world is Britain’s crisis when it often is not. Our involvement in such crises leads to intense problems and enormous costs and, in future, we must look to the decision on Helmand.

The report, “Parliament’s role in conflict decisions: a way forward”, cannot be expurgated in the same way as the Chilcot report. John Major, the former Prime Minister, has said that if the full truth is denied, the whole issue will continue to fester and doubts will persist. A Minister recently told the Public Administration Committee that Chilcot did not report to Ministers, but he reports to the Prime Minister. Changes can be made. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee offers this report to confirm the improvements that have taken place and to ensure that decisions on warfare are not made by a tiny clique at the top of the tree. Looking at the first world war, errors were made and the reasons for getting involved were extraordinarily trivial, resulting in a tremendous number of casualties. The Committee has served us well and we will serve our nation well if we look at Parliament’s role in warfare and strengthen it to the benefit of all.

Cost of Living: Energy and Housing

Mike Weir Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend the fantastic work he is doing with rural communities the length and breadth of Britain and thank him for the support he has given my team in addressing some of the issues facing households who are off the grid. As he says, for those off the grid this is an equally disappointing Queen’s Speech. There is nothing on bringing forward winter fuel payments, which would allow people to buy their heating oil when it is cheaper, or on bringing those who are off-grid under the energy regulator so that they can enjoy some of the protections that everybody else would enjoy. Labour would have put both those measures in a Queen’s Speech.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased that Labour has now supported early winter fuel payments, for which I have been pushing for some time. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that one of the other problems is that the energy company obligation does not include off-grid boilers? Would Labour be prepared to push forward a measure on that? [Interruption.]

[Caroline Flint]

I am hearing from different parts of the House that the ECO does and does not allow it. Clearly, we must have an energy efficiency and insulation programme that meets the needs of various communities in the different circumstances in which they find themselves. With my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), I am working through a number of proposals and listening to communities about what would work. I am also listening to those working in the sector, as well as those who supply oil and gas and those who want to see what they can do to help more with energy and insulation. We are looking into this in greater detail.

That leads me to my next point. In the long term, the most sustainable way to cut people’s energy bills is to improve the energy efficiency and insulation of our housing stock. Despite the progress made under the previous Government, who helped more than 2 million households through Warm Front and millions more through the decent homes programme, Britain still has some of the least energy-efficient housing stock anywhere in Europe. Some 80% of our stock today will still be around in 2050, and this Government’s green deal, which I remind the House was billed as the biggest home improvements programme since world war two, has been an abject failure. Just 2,500 households have signed up for a green deal package. To put that figure in context, it is only slightly more than the number of Liberal Democrat councillors left after the party’s collapse in the local elections a couple of weeks ago, including on Kingston council in the Secretary of State’s area.

We have a big enough challenge bringing our existing stock up to scratch without having to worry about retrofitting the housing we are building now. That is why, when in government, Labour set a target that every new home built in Britain would have to be built to, or as near as possible to, a zero-carbon standard by 2016. In this Queen’s Speech, however, we have the bizarre but not uncommon spectacle of the Liberal Democrats trying to claim credit for a policy that was actually introduced seven years ago and which they have undermined. That is exactly what they are doing: taking our zero-carbon homes policy, exempting developments of up to 50 homes, watering down the standards for larger developers, and then wanting credit for it. Whatever the short-term benefits, in the long term there is a real risk that these decisions will leave consumers stuck with homes that are not meeting the high standards of energy efficiency. Given the scale of the challenge we already face, that is a problem we could well afford to do without.

On housing more generally, the country is suffering from the biggest housing crisis in a generation: house building is at its lowest peacetime level since the 1920s; affordable home starts are down by a third since the election; and home ownership is falling further and further out of reach for young families. As a result, more and more people are having to rely on renting a home in the private sector, but the cost of renting has gone up, rising more than twice as fast as wages since the election, despite the prediction of the former Housing Minister and, if reports are to be believed, the soon-to-be former chair of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who reassured us that rents would not go up. But they have gone up, and renters are getting a bad deal and are being forced to pay all kinds of unfair charges and fees.

Nothing is being done to provide the certainties that families need to plan for their future. What does this Queen’s speech have to offer them? Nothing. All we have is Help to Buy. Of course, any help for first-time buyers struggling to get on the property ladder is welcome, but why is a scheme that is meant to help first-time buyers allowing for taxpayer-based mortgages for homes worth up to £600,000? How many first-time buyers can afford homes worth £600,000? As more and more voices are warning, unless rising demand for housing is matched with rising supply, house prices will inflate even further, making home ownership even less affordable for those on lower-middle incomes.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will set out in his speech later, if this were Labour’s Queen’s Speech, we know what we would do to get Britain building again, help people get on the housing ladder and give people who rent more security. We would get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020. We would unlock the supply of new homes by giving local authorities “use it or lose it” powers and boost the role of small house builders. We would legislate to make longer-term tenancies with predictable rents the norm and properly regulate letting agencies.

Like energy, water is another essential to life, but more than 2 million households are forced to spend more than 5% of their income on their water bills. At the moment, the water companies can choose whether or not to offer a social tariff to those customers who struggle the most. As a result, only three companies do so, and fewer than 25,000 households receive any help at all. That is just not good enough. If this were our Queen’s Speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) would use powers to establish a national affordability scheme, funded by the water companies, to ensure that help gets to those who need it and to put an end to the current postcode lottery.

As well as dealing with the problems that hold back our country, we should be making big, long-term changes to our economy so that we can grow and earn our way to a higher standard of living. Work should pay and people should always be better off in work than out of it. One reason it does not always feel like that is the rising cost of child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) has highlighted, since the election the cost of a nursery place has risen five times faster than pay. There are 578 fewer Sure Start centres, and 35,000 fewer child care places. However, the Government’s new child care allowance will not even start until well after the next election. If this was our Queen’s Speech, we would expand free child care from 15 to 25 hours for working parents of three and four-year-olds to make work pay, and we would create a legal guarantee of access to wraparound child care for primary school children through their school from 8 am to 6 pm.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) will set out next week, there is so much more that the Government could and should have done in the Queen’s Speech. Let us take zero-hours contracts. We welcome the fact that the Government have adopted our policy of banning exclusivity clauses, but that is only one part of the problem. What about people working regular hours for month after month, or even for years, who are still on zero-hours contracts? This Queen’s Speech does not help them. What about strengthening the national minimum wage, tax breaks for firms that boost pay through the living wage, job guarantees for the young and long-term unemployed, or help for small businesses by cutting business rates and reforming the banks? That is the sort of Queen’s Speech that our country needs.

I am afraid that what we got yesterday was a series of half-baked measures, re-announcements and policies brought in to solve problems this Government created in the first place. Why was it necessary to include a Bill to deal with the problem of people leaving one part of the public sector with huge pay-offs only to be re-employed in another part? Let us be honest about this. It is because of the thousands of people who have done exactly that since the Government’s reorganisation of the NHS. Let us remember, when they talk about getting the banks to lend to small businesses, to ask why they are dealing with this problem only in the fifth year of this Government.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that the Government have fallen short. While family budgets were being squeezed throughout the country, the Government were in denial; from this Queen’s Speech, we can see that they still are. They crow about a recovery, but as the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said on Monday, ordinary people have not yet felt any sense of recovery. I agree: a recovery that does not benefit ordinary working people is no recovery at all, and the promise of Britain—that the next generation should do better than the last—is being broken.

The test of any Queen’s Speech is whether it deals with the challenges the country faces today and sets the foundation for our country to be stronger and more prosperous for the future. On both those counts, this Queen’s Speech fails. In 11 months’ time, the country will face a choice between a Britain where a few at the top do well and everyone else is left to take their chances, where people are working harder for longer for less, and where the powerful play by one set of rules and the rest of us live by a different one; and Labour’s vision of a Britain with fair play at its heart, where businesses pay their taxes, do not exploit migrant labour and have an apprenticeship scheme alongside any workers they bring in from abroad, where there are fair rules for things such as welfare, selling energy or coming into our country, where there are fair rewards for a country in which hard work pays, responsibility is rewarded and everyone shares in its success, and where there are fair chances for a country in which people do not have to be born into privilege to get on or to have a secure roof over their head and their life chances are not defined by the postcode in which they were born. That is Labour’s vision for Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), who made some good points, particularly about the modern slavery Bill, and some effective comments about immigration and what happens to youngsters coming into the country. I think that that is something on which we could all agree.

I am pleased to make a small contribution to the debate and, perhaps unsurprisingly, would like principally to address some issues about energy. I am somewhat perplexed by the apparent headlong rush to do everything possible to allow fracking to take place. I remain sceptical about the potential of fracking and would be more cautious about taking it forward, because despite all the claims that are made of a new energy revolution, the situation in the UK is vastly different from that in the United States, and even there considerable controversy surrounds the technology.

Much of central and eastern Scotland, including parts of my constituency, is included in the latest map of possible sites for unconventional oil and gas. It seems to me, however, that we need to take a balanced, responsible and evidence-based approach, listening to the concerns of communities, and to proceed with caution. I particularly wanted to raise this issue, because I am a little unclear as to what is proposed in the infrastructure Bill. In Scotland, the situation is different from that in England. Although onshore oil and gas is vested in the Crown and subject to the same licensing regime at present as the remainder of the UK, planning law is devolved and the law of property is also significantly different, and both are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

The changes to the law to allow fracking under properties without owners’ permission has already produced a considerable public response. In fact, I received a number of e-mails on the subject overnight. Although I accept what the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said about the amount of misinformation and misapprehension over what is meant by those changes, I had assumed that the proposed changes to the law would not affect Scotland, since property and land law is a devolved matter. However, the notes to the Queen’s Speech issued by the No. 10 press office state, in relation to the infrastructure Bill:

“Subject to consultation, this Bill would support development of gas and oil from shale and geothermal energy by clarifying and streamlining the underground access regime.”

Furthermore, in a section headed “Devolution” it goes on to say:

“The provisions relating to roads, Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, planning consents for local projects and public sector land assets would apply only to England. The provisions relating to the local land charge aspects of the Land Registry and invasive non-native species would apply to England and Wales. Where the Bill deals with devolved matters, we are engaging with the Devolved Administrations as needed.”

Now, that raises a question in my mind: what is the situation with

“streamlining the underground access regime”,

as the notes put it? Can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention to seek changes in Scotland on these issues or is it indeed a specific matter for England? I had understood that the problem was with the specific English law of trespass, a law that is different in Scotland. If the Government’s intention is the former, what specific changes are they seeking? Many questions are being asked by my constituents and I do not want to give them false information, so I need to be clear about exactly what is happening and how far it will affect them.

The notes also refers to the future of North sea oil and gas and the report from Sir Ian Wood on maximising economic recovery of oil and gas reserves. This report perhaps already holds a special place in history as the only review to which both the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and almost everyone in between, has subscribed, even though it has some fairly uncomfortable things to say to both Government and industry. We will, of course, look closely at the part of the Bill that seeks to implement the proposals, although we have a different view of the future—these matters will become academic for this place following September’s referendum.

It will, however, be interesting to see how the Government propose to proceed. They say that they will

“introduce a levy-making power so that the costs of funding a larger, better resourced regulator can be paid for by industry rather than by the taxpayer as is currently the case.”

I support that objective, but as other parties now seem to be falling over themselves to offer some crumbs of further devolution to fight off the growing momentum towards a yes vote, it will be interesting to see whether that includes basing the proposed new regulator in Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, or whether it will be yet another London-based outfit.

What the Gracious Speech did not do was tackle some of the many issues affecting the energy industry and consumers in Scotland and throughout other parts of the United Kingdom. Over the years in this House, I have repeatedly raised the issue of the unfair transmission charging regime that increases costs for generators, particularly renewable generators, in Scotland, adding to the costs of producing energy, which are invariably passed on to the consumers. After much pressing, Ofgem finally came up with Project TransmiT, which seems to be interminable. Although far from perfect, the proposal was to make some changes to the regime that would have benefited renewable generation, particularly in Scotland, yet its implementation has been postponed yet again and is now promised for sometime next spring.

The project has been postponed several times, and energy producers and consumers continue to pay more. Dealing with such issues could do a lot to help ameliorate the costs that consumers must pay towards their energy. If this Government are truly intent on enhancing the United Kingdom’s energy independence and security, as stated in the Gracious Speech, they need to get a grip and ensure that we have a regime that truly encourages the growth of renewable energy, which will not only create jobs but, as I said, ensure lower prices to consumers in the longer term.

There are many other issues that impact upon energy consumers and the cost of living of specific groups which could be dealt with to give real benefit and relief, but yet again they are completely missing from the Gracious Speech. It is interesting to note in passing that much was said earlier by the Secretary of State about companies voluntarily freezing prices. That has undoubtedly happened in some cases, but as those of us who looked at price freezes in another context know, it comes at a cost. There is no magic bullet. Along with its proposal to freeze prices, Scottish and Southern Energy announced significant job losses and pulled out of several investment projects. That must be borne in mind when thinking about such a proposal. It is not a one-way street.

I have long championed the cause of introducing a simple measure that would help pensioners who live off the gas grid, and have introduced two Bills on the matter, as well as raising it during the passage of various energy Bills. I may well take part in the ballot for private Members’ Bills and, if successful, introduce such a Bill again. The simple fact is that those who are off the gas grid pay higher costs than those on the grid, and pensioners are particularly badly hit. The problem in many rural areas is exacerbated by the fact that much of the housing is old and of construction that makes it very difficult to install energy-saving methods, such as cavity wall insulation.

Of course, those households will continue to receive the same winter fuel allowances as pensioners on the gas grid, but the crucial difference is how the energy is delivered. Those who are on the gas grid will receive their winter fuel bill around the time that the winter fuel allowance is generally paid, and the system therefore works very well for them. Indeed, in their explanatory notes to the regulations that last amended the benefit, the previous Government said specifically:

“They are paid in a lump sum each winter to ensure that money is available when fuel bills arrive.”

That is not the case for those who are off the gas grid. They face the difficulty that they have to pay for their liquefied petroleum gas or home fuel oil up front at the beginning of winter, well before they have the benefit of the winter fuel allowance. Many find it difficult to do so and may well not fill up the tank completely, leaving them having to do so in the depths of winter, which brings problems of its own.

When the Office of Fair Trading looked at the market a few years back, it found that there were many competing suppliers in the market. By definition, many of these were small suppliers, and although some of the larger players will offer greater flexibility for payment, many smaller ones are unable to so. The price of fuel is rising, often quite substantially as winter approaches, and even those suppliers who offer a fixed winter price will do so at a price higher than the summer price. There is also the problem of getting a delivery. Members will recall the dreadful weather two winters ago, during which many of my constituents faced huge difficulties in getting their tanks filled up, some being left with no fuel in the run-up to Christmas. That was perhaps exceptional, but it shows the additional problems that off-grid consumers face.

I am very pleased that the Labour Opposition have now supported the measure. I welcomed it when they did so and I welcome it again today, but the cynic in me notes in passing that I have now had support from all three of the other parties in the House for the measure. Unfortunately, it has always been when they were in opposition, not when they were in government. I hope that in the event of a change of Government, this time we will see an all-party approach to try to get the matter dealt with finally. It is an issue that has been going on for years and it is a simple matter that could make a real difference.

As I said, my Bill put forward a suggestion as to how we might tackle the problem, as was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), by paying the winter fuel allowance earlier. The regulations could be amended simply by changing the date on which it is paid to off-grid customers. The scale of the problem was highlighted this week by a report from Scotland’s Rural College which showed that nearly 60% of the over-60s in rural areas are in fuel poverty, compared with 45% in urban areas. That is a truly shocking statistic. We need urgent action to tackle this situation.

The other point that I have often raised and will raise again is that there are no proposals in the Gracious Speech to tackle the problems of off-grid consumers under the present green deal. That is not working as well as it should, partly because it is left to the energy companies to set up and administer. There is such a complete lack of trust among consumers towards energy companies that many will not take up any deal offered by them. One example that I raised earlier and will mention again relates to the lack of ability to get a home fuel or LPG boiler under the energy company obligation scheme.

In Scotland the situation is slightly different. Under the home energy efficiency programme, the old scheme partly for central heating that was introduced by the Scottish Parliament, it is possible to get an off-grid boiler if it is replacing part of the central heating scheme. As I understand it, this is not available in other parts of the United Kingdom and it is not available under the energy companies’ ECO scheme. We have repeatedly been told that ECO is technology-neutral but this is clearly not the case, as none of the companies will include off-grid boilers in their schemes. I appreciate that these boilers are more expensive than traditional boilers, but that rather emphasises the point that those who are off the gas grid are doubly penalised—they pay much higher prices and at the same time cannot get replacement equipment that would be more efficient. Surely there are economies of scale that could reduce prices if the companies offered such technology, but I suspect that it will take the Government to force them to do so.

I am disappointed that despite talking about this matter—I know that the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) took an interest in it when he was an Energy Minister—the Government have not grasped the nettle and included provisions to deal with these issues. There is a missed opportunity in many of the proposals relating to energy, which could have made a real difference to people’s lives.

[Mr Hayes]

As the hon. Gentleman cited the impressive record that I had as the Energy Minister, will he acknowledge—I know he is very generous about these things—that we have made strides in greater transparency and clarity, at least in terms of tariffs, and that that progress was partly inspired by contributions from Members across the House, including him?

[Mr Weir]

I have always acknowledged that even off grid the Minister was responsible for setting up the ministerial round table which has opened up discussion on these issues. I acknowledge that, but what we need is action before next winter on these specific issues, because there are serious problems among pensioners in rural areas, and not just in Scotland. In the highlands of Scotland it is a particular issue, but it is also an issue in rural Wales, Northern Ireland and many parts of rural England. We need action on that. It is not expensive. It could be done relatively easily and I am disappointed that the issue has not been tackled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his ingenuity in getting a reference to Govan shipbuilders on the record. He will have to wait to hear the full extent of the announcement. I assure him that Govan shipbuilders will benefit from the same mail delivery protections from Ofcom as everyone else.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Under the Postal Services Act 2011 the only protection for consumers is from Ofcom. Given the less than stellar performance of other utility regulators, why should consumers in Scotland have any confidence that their services will be protected?

[Mr Carmichael]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, but as he continues to ignore, the difference is that this time we have included meaningful protections that give Ofcom the power it needs to protect communities such as mine and his.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

As one of my hon. Friend’s neighbouring MPs, I recognise the importance of Hexham and north Northumberland. As he knows, in a farming context and in so many other ways, any kind of legal border between Scotland and England would be an absolute disaster—not just for our constituents, but for all the United Kingdom.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent report on the effect of the Irish Government’s reduction of VAT on tourism-related businesses to 9%, creating around 10,000 jobs and a €40 million boost to the Exchequer? As 24 other EU countries already charge less VAT on hotel accommodation than the UK, will he press the Chancellor to take similar action and give a real boost to the rural economy?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman always makes serious points on behalf of his constituents. I appreciate that what he has asked about is a consistent theme of the tourism sector, and the Chancellor will no doubt regard it as an early bid for next year’s Budget measures. However, the hon. Gentleman would be more convincing if he brought along a costed example of how an independent Scotland would do such a thing.

IT Recycling

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Weir, for calling me to speak. It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank the Minister for turning up. Our last encounter in an Adjournment debate was on the rather more controversial issue of trade union reform. I can assure him that although this afternoon’s debate may be slightly less spicy, the topic that we are discussing will nevertheless be just as important.

I was prompted to apply for this debate after recently attending the opening of a new IT recycling facility in my constituency by a company called PRM Green Technologies. As a declaration of interest, I am delighted to say that several of the company’s directors have travelled down from Cannock to Westminster to be here for this debate this afternoon. I am very happy to see Richard Manning, Paul Mallet and Tim Hawkins sitting in the Gallery. If I get any of the IT detail wrong, no doubt they will intervene on me from a sedentary position.

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

No, they will not.

[Mr Burley]

Well, perhaps not.

What I learned from my recent visit to PRM Green Technologies was very interesting. Here was a local firm exhibiting strong and sustained growth, and providing much-needed jobs for local people; in fact, it recruited especially from the disadvantaged and long-term unemployed. Yet it appears to be deliberately operating at a competitive disadvantage, because it has long been the IT recycling industry’s standard to charge end users and organisations, including public bodies such as schools and hospitals, to dispose of all their old, unwanted and end-of-life IT equipment. However, PRM offers that service for free while remaining a profitable business.

Whenever an organisation has finished using its IT equipment—whether that equipment is computers, laptops or other hardware—and wants to get rid of it securely, which is an important issue that I will come on to in a minute, the accepted practice is to pay a firm to collect the equipment and take it away. There are sensible reasons for doing so, because a company is paying not only for its items of IT equipment to be collected as people might pay to have household waste collected but for a service whereby the data left on them will be wiped and they will be securely recycled. That is especially important if there is sensitive material on the equipment, as might be the case if the computer had been used in a hospital to store medical files, by the police for criminal records or by a school or care home to store data on vulnerable children. The last thing that we want is British police computer data ending up for sale on second-hand computers in Iraq, as has happened recently.

However, PRM Green Technologies in Cannock offers all those services—the collection, the secure recycling and the data wiping—for free, and does so at a national level. Its business model does not charge the service user a single penny to recycle their redundant and end-of-life or damaged IT equipment. As I learned on my visit, the company already has more than 4,000 customers, who enjoy a service that is completely—100%—free of charge.

Why is all this important, and why have I secured the debate? Well, I have a simple question this afternoon: if this service is available for free, to nationally agreed standards of data cleansing, why would any organisation—public or private—pay for the same service? If we think about it, this process has the potential to be incredibly important for the public sector as a whole, which, as we know, is already struggling to deal with budget reductions in this age of austerity. If a school spends money on paying to have its old IT equipment recycled, that money cannot be spent on teachers, sports facilities or a new playground. If an NHS trust spends money on paying to have its old IT equipment recycled, that money cannot be spent on doctors, nurses or medicine, and if a council spends money on paying to have its old IT equipment recycled, that money cannot be spent on libraries, leisure facilities or resurfacing roads, which are services that we know all our constituents rely on and prioritise.

Let me give just one example. Many of PRM’s customers are education providers, such as schools, colleges and universities. The company calculates that it alone has saved the education sector in excess of £5 million, which is the same amount of money that could have employed a total of 237 teachers. Just imagine what that could mean if the system were rolled out nationally? If a small company from Cannock, with 28 employees, can effectively pay the salaries of 237 teachers, how many more teachers could be provided nationally if school budgets were better managed? This one firm also has 17 local authorities on its books, as well as three NHS health care trusts. Again, think of how many council staff or medical professionals could be employed if all the other local authorities or health care trusts in the UK did not waste their budgets on paying to have their old IT equipment recycled.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, what can the Government do to make public bodies aware that there are companies—not just PRM in my constituency but other companies—that will absorb all the costs of recycling all of their old IT equipment? Secondly, what can we do to ensure that public bodies do not waste their budgets on IT recycling and instead spend every penny on the front line? Thirdly, will he start the process with his own Department and write to me to say whether the Cabinet Office spends any of its departmental budget on disposing of its old computers? Finally, will his Department write to the other Whitehall Departments to ask similar questions of them?

I ask those questions now because if so many organisations, bodies and individuals can already see the benefit of using PRM—not only once, but time and again—why are more sections of society, industry and Government not waking up to the fact that, even in these austere times, there are companies run by individuals such as those sitting in the Gallery today that will charge nothing for IT recycling? If they did wake up to that fact, they could—indeed, would—make a difference to their organisation’s ability to serve the public.

Having said that, we need to go slightly further. We must ask ourselves what challenges, real or perceived, prevent Departments or larger parts of the civil service from availing themselves of such a service provision for no cost whatever, and therefore from providing far greater value for money for the taxpayer?

After talking to PRM when I visited its facility, I learned that the biggest issue regarding Government assets would appear to be security. The feedback that PRM receives is that the possibility of events such as data being lost, assets going untracked and personnel entering sites without the correct checks being in place presents great concerns.

People might ask, “Are companies that perform this service for free actually capable of providing the level of data security required, and yet still maintaining zero costs?” To do so, all of a company’s staff would need to be vetted to BS7858 standards. Its premises would need to protected by several layers of physical security, including two external rings of steel, 24-hour security guards, CCTV monitoring 24 hours a day, monitored alarm systems, internal access control and interior steel cages that are protected 24 hours a day. All that security is needed to ensure that the data remain secure once they have been collected from an organisation and before they are deleted and wiped. A company would need to destroy data assets using Government-approved software and devices, as well as special shredding techniques. Its vehicles would need to be fully liveried, satellite-tracked and have CCTV on board, to further protect the assets that the company carries on behalf of its service users. Surely a company cannot do all of that without charging its customers. Well, companies can and do. PRM does all that, and other companies around the country do it too. Quite simply, there is no catch. And if PRM and other companies can do that, concerns about data security need not be valid and need not be a reason to continue with existing paid-for IT collection contracts.

How does PRM manage to offer such a service? It does so because it extracts every little bit of residual value from every kilogram of every item that it collects and processes, and because it has chosen to model its business in this way it ensures that it extracts maximum value from IT equipment, therefore guaranteeing minimum waste and landfill. If a company has to absorb its own collection costs, not least the petrol and the vans, let alone the infrastructure that I have described, it makes sure that it extracts every bit of residual value from every kilogram of every item of IT equipment it collects, because it has to.

However, here is the depressing bit. Although companies such as PRM Green Technologies can offer that service, increasingly Departments and the NHS are unable to respond to its unique offer. In initial contacts, PRM often talks directly to the responsible IT department or the finance department, but often it finds that current contracts blanket-cover all aspects of a service, otherwise known as the dreaded outsourcing, or facilities management. By way of a total tangent, these are the same sort of all-inclusive outsourced contracts that led to the TV chef, James Martin, discovering that Welsh hospitals could not buy Welsh lamb to serve to their patients, because their outsourced contractor bought all its lamb from New Zealand, even though lambs were literally grazing on fields outside the hospital and local farmers could charge almost 50% less than the New Zealand imports. I digress, and that is a debate for another time, but the point is valid. Even if a Department wanted to be involved, it is often tied into a cost-making exercise.

Senior people in a Department or buyers in councils are often surprised that this free service even exists. What should be most shocking of all to the Minister is that often, their tendering model cannot cope with assessing tenders that have a negative or zero value in the calculation. Perhaps the Minister will think about that for a second: because councils cannot conceive of not paying for the service, the computer says no. That being so, we must examine the charges that are incurred across every part of Government and question the structure of contracts. Those charges appear to be part of much larger and more complex contracts of service provision, which we need to investigate to render them more transparent for the public good.

What can be done to ensure better procurement of goods and services throughout the public sector, allowing schools, hospitals, police forces and councils to avail themselves of a free IT recycling service? Perhaps we as a society need to rethink our negative attitudes to people who offer something for nothing. In this instance, that should not apply, because as I have already explained there is always residual value in IT equipment, which all providers need to ensure that their commercial model is viable. In short, even companies that are paid to collect unwanted computer equipment still need to be able to sell them on or break them down for parts to be a viable, profitable business. The difference is that some companies, such as PRM, have the social conscience not to skim extra cream off the top.

All that the organisations need to know, whether police forces, councils, hospitals, or businesses, is one thing: where are their assets going to end up? It makes more business sense for IT recycling providers to ensure that they can extract maximum value from assets without charge to the service user. If they get paid only for what they can repair, refurbish and resell, or recycle in full, it cannot be in their interest to dump or dispose of these items incorrectly, as they will not get a penny for any item dealt with in such a manner. With asset-tracking and reporting systems in place, the customer can be further reassured of their good intentions.

There is no inherent greater security in a firm that charges to pick up IT equipment, and then recycles it and sells it on, than in a firm that picks it up for free before recycling it and selling it on. In fact, the reverse may be true. If a company is making a margin on picking up the goods, they arguably have less incentive to securely recycle them and squeeze out every penny of margin, as they already have some cash in the bank simply from collecting the items.

Perhaps the greatest problem presents itself when the very people tasked with ensuring that assets are disposed of correctly are poorly equipped, through no fault of their own, to make an informed decision about how to deal with that problem. For example, the head teacher of a primary school, who deals with the school’s entire IT assets and support, may receive little direction on how to approach the challenges of safe and correct disposal of IT equipment while ensuring value for money for their school. To that head teacher, paying for such a service might seem a sensible, industry-accepted practice, not least because they might never have heard of alternatives that could mean that they could pay for a new classroom extension, playground, or even computer room.

I do not know how to change those perceptions, but I know that the Minister, wearing his other hat, has responsibility for communicating the not entirely straightforward concept of the big society. In responding, perhaps he will draw on his communications experience, and the power, leverage and tentacles of his Department, in saying how we can change people’s perceptions. Once the benefits are fully realised, many further positives can flow, with public money being better directed to the front line rather than wasted in unnecessary ways.

Even though the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, the European Community directive that requires all our electrical items to be registered and recycled safely, has placed the onus of the cost of recycling on the producers and importers of these items, that has not filtered down to many of the organisations previously mentioned. Despite computer companies having to adopt membership of approved compliance schemes and having to pay to offset the large tonnages of equipment that they place on the market every year, there are still just as many companies in existence that charge for the service that they provide.

Every electrical item has some degree of residual value, and with modern recycling techniques there is no reason why that value should not be returned in some measure. If a service provider, such as PRM, is prepared to speculate that the residual value in any goods collected will be greater than the overall costs of collecting and processing them, surely that must be to everybody’s advantage.

There is a moral case for public sector organisations to spend as many pennies as possible on their front line, rather than paying for redundant IT equipment to be taken away, and a financial case for spending more money on teachers, nurses, doctors and policemen, and less on IT waste recycling.

How do we make the decision makers in these organisations more accessible to the providers of these free services? How do we make them more aware of the alternative, cheaper options that exist? Should we compel them, by law if necessary, to use free providers, rather than pay for the equivalent service? What can we do about the outsourced contracts that I mentioned, which tie big organisations such as NHS trusts into schemes they cannot opt out of even when they see a better alternative? What can the Government do to help the public sector help itself in respect of bearing the costs of recycling old IT equipment?

Those are the questions for the Minister, who has a huge opportunity to make massive savings across the public sector at no cost to jobs by ensuring that no one spends a single penny to recycle their redundant and end-of-life or damaged IT equipment, and that people instead use firms such as PRM Green Technologies, which is a great example of a private sector firm acting in the best interests of the public sector, taxpayers and society as a whole.

Rio+20 Summit

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Yes. The breakthrough, conceptual though it is and not concrete enough, is that 196 countries are saying overtly and explicitly, “We think development needs to be resource-sustainable and we want to craft sustainable development goals.” However, in a sense, this is a concept without sufficient content. The test of whether it will be looked back on as a complete wash-out or a great triumph is what we then do with that outline concept, and whether we have the political will to use the mechanisms that have been established—not least the group that will start work in December—to flesh out the content and feed that into the wider review of the millennium development goals as they are reviewed and strengthened in the post-2015 framework.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has been very candid about the limitations of the declaration from Rio, but he urges us to strive to surpass his expectation. Does he any specific ideas about what the UK might do in this respect? In particular, has he thought about following the Scottish Government’s example of establishing a climate justice fund?

Open Public Services White Paper

Mike Weir Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

I am delighted to help out my hon. Friend and Dorset colleague on this. What he says is absolutely true: there was a vast increase in spending on public services during the last Government. Alas, the improvements in the outcomes were not as great as the inputs. That is precisely what we are trying to tackle, and we are doing it in an age-old way, by introducing innovation and diversity of supply, as well as choice and power for the people using the services, so that there is real pressure on all providers to improve. We need continuous pressure for improvement and continuous transparency on whether the services are improving, as well as a continuous ability for people who find a service being provided better elsewhere to choose the best service. Those are the methods that always improve quality.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Most of the examples that the Minister has given are devolved, although he did mention welfare to work. He may know that there is concern in many rural and remote communities about the ability of alternative providers to deliver services. Can he at least give us an assurance that such change will not be driven through for purely ideological reasons where there is clearly no infrastructure to support alternative deliverers?

[Mr Letwin]

Yes, in the sense that this White Paper sets out a programme not to enforce diversity of provision, but to enable it. If the community wishes to leave a particular service that is provided by only one provider where it is, that will be for the community to judge. If the community believes that in some cases it is worth having a diversity of suppliers, that is what the community will be able to do. I am speaking now about areas that are mainly devolved, as the hon. Gentleman said; hence, I am speaking about England. I leave it to him and his colleagues to deal with those in Scotland. In the case of the Work programme, there is a diversity of suppliers; indeed, there had to be, in order to create competitive pressure to ensure that those who succeed also succeed in being paid, and that those who do not succeed are quickly replaced by those who will, because it is a payment-by-results programme and the aim is to get people back to work. We want the providers that are best at getting people back to work to be those that remain in business.

Japan and the Middle East

Mike Weir Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Everyone will have seen the words of the Arab League and of the Gulf Co-operation Council, which are welcome, and it is—to some—an unexpected step that they are being so forthright in asking for a no-fly zone, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: were that to happen, it should go ahead on the basis of the broadest amount of international support and participation, and crucially that should include participation by Arab states themselves, which do have the assets to bring to bear.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

First and foremost, our thoughts are with the people of Japan at this terrible time, and whatever our own views on nuclear power we fervently hope that their engineers are able to bring under control the situation at Fukushima.

The Prime Minister made some perfectly valid points about the differences between the UK and Japan, but the fact remains that their reactors are specifically designed for Japanese, known seismic risk. Should that not give us pause for thought about our own nuclear plans?

[The Prime Minister]

We have an excellent nuclear safety record in this country, but we should never be complacent. When any nuclear incident happens anywhere else in the world, we should immediately examine it and ask ourselves, “Does this have any implications for what we do in the UK?” There are some important scientific points to take into account, including the different reactors and seismic conditions that we have here, but nevertheless we will make sure that the gentleman I mentioned in my statement does the work properly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Weir Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The Opposition were beginning to understand that they had left us with a debt burden, and beginning to own up to it, but now, with the new shadow Chancellor, they are in complete and utter deficit denial. They have not even taken the first step to being a responsible Opposition.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Q8. Around the country, driving test centres such as those at Arbroath and Forfar in my constituency are being closed without any consultation whatever with the local community or instructors. Surely that is the complete opposite of localism. Will the Prime Minister lean over and instruct his Transport Secretary to put a stop to such closures until there has been at the very least consultation with the local community and consideration of alternative ways to provide the service?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand the importance of these facilities in rural communities. As I understand it, the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency has said that she will explore further how to continue to offer facilities in these locations. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to contact the hon. Gentleman to discuss this important issue with him.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Mike Weir Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a disconnect, because serious politicians in Scotland will be dealing with issues of health and education, which are so important in our Parliament? There will be no real debate about the alternative vote because, frankly, no one is interested in it. There will therefore be a double whammy.

--- Later in debate ---

By any stretch of the imagination, the referendum will decide a constitutional issue, and one which divides all parties—there are people even in the Conservative party who are mad enough to consider the alternative vote. [Hon. Members: “Name them!”] Allow me to correct myself: some Conservatives are mad enough to consider supporting the alternative vote because they want something else. The idea that an AV referendum should be decided amid the furore of the party political battle—in Scotland, for example, public spending cuts will have to be hotly debated—seems extremely unsatisfactory to me, as the 2002-03 proposal did to the Electoral Commission.

[Mr Weir]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that politicians might discuss public spending cuts rather than the referendum? There will be a disconnect, because the BBC, for example, might broadcast news only on the referendum, but the battle on the ground will be completely different. That will also skew the result.

[Mr Jenkin]

If I may, I will come to the question of broadcasting balance when I have dealt with campaign confusion.

The commission stated:

“The issue surrounding different political parties campaigning together (referendum) and against each other (elections) may also cause confusion, and consequent disinterest (even hostility), among voters.”

On reflection, perhaps the yes campaign wants hostility. Let us face it: that campaign wants a plague on all our houses, and to change the system at a stroke to reflect the hostility that people feel towards this place. I am sure that the yes campaign will seek to press that button.