North Sea Oil and Gas (Employment)
Debate between Mike Weir and Robert Smith(9 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this timely debate.
Despite current difficulties, the North sea oil and gas industry remains vital for Scotland—north-east Scotland, in particular. The industry makes a huge contribution not only to the Scottish economy, but to the economy of the whole UK: since its inception, it has contributed more than £300 billion in taxation to the Treasury. We have built a world-class industrial cluster in the North sea, and we now export the skills and services required to support it around the world.
In my constituency, for example, many people work in the oil and gas industry, increasingly not only in the North sea, but in various parts of central Asia, Africa and the far east. Many companies in Angus are also part of the supply chain for the North sea industry. The low level of oil and gas prices and the difficulties that that is causing are obviously of great concern. Clearly, we have experienced such falls in prices before; the previous time it happened was as recently as 2009, when the price plunged from $144 to $40 a barrel. Nevertheless, the current low price is of concern, and action must be taken to ensure that the industry is assisted through such a turbulent period.
Despite the rather dramatic headlines in some newspapers and other media reports, the North sea oil and gas sector continues to have a bright future. Indeed, when I spoke to BP about the job losses that it announced last week, it emphasised that it remained committed to the North sea, with the Kinnoull field coming on stream and the Clair field due to continue operations well into the 2050s. We should not, therefore, get too downhearted about what is going on. Immediate action is needed, however, to ensure that employment and exploration continue.
Sir Robert Smith
We need to realise that we face quite a large challenge. There is an undercurrent of jobs going, and that is not necessarily being reported. Contracts are being lost, especially by subcontractors, but that does not necessarily show up straight away in unemployment figures.
Mr Weir
I accept that. This is going on throughout the industry—in direct employment and among subcontractors.
Within their limited powers in this area, the Scottish Government have taken action. The First Minister has announced a new taskforce to focus on supporting jobs across the energy sector, with an initial emphasis on the oil and gas sector, and to secure an employer apprentice guarantee, under which firms would commit to taking on apprentices facing redundancy to ensure that they completed their training. That commitment would be supported by the Adopt an Apprentice recruitment incentive—currently, there is a one-off grant of £2,000, which is to be increased to £5,000—and by Skills Development Scotland staff.
If we are to protect Scotland’s vital oil and gas sector, however, the UK Government, specifically the Treasury, need to step up to the plate and to make immediate tax changes. We have already called on them to take urgent action to support investment and exploration. The Scottish Government have consistently called for measures to be implemented without delay, including an investment allowance to provide support for the development of fields that incur higher costs. That would support technically challenging, high-cost fields and sustain future investment. Professor Alex Kemp, a respected oil economist at Aberdeen university, estimates that an investment allowance could increase investment by £20 billion to £36 billion to 2050 and boost production by 1.2 billion to 2.2 billion barrels. Scottish Government estimates suggest that it could support between 14,000 and 26,000 jobs per year across the UK.
The Scottish Government have also called for a reversal of the increase in the supplementary charge implemented by the UK Government in 2011. The high overall tax burden faced by the sector is damaging its international competitiveness. The supplementary charge was increased by 12% in 2011, and the 2% cut announced so far does not go far enough in the current context of falling prices. Professor Kemp estimates that a reversal would increase production to 2050 by 500 million barrels and boost investment by £7 billion. Scottish Government analysis suggests that such a move could support up to 5,600 jobs per year across the UK.
In addition, the Scottish Government have called for the introduction of an exploration tax credit to help increase levels of exploration and sustain future production. As most of us are aware, levels of exploration in the North sea are low, which will inevitably reduce future discoveries. An exploration tax credit would help to increase exploration and, in turn, sustain future production. A similar approach was adopted in Norway in 2005. In the three years following its introduction, the number of exploration and appraisal wells drilled in the Norwegian North sea increased fourfold.
We have previously highlighted and backed industry concerns about the speed with which the new Oil and Gas Authority is being established, and we have called for appropriate resourcing of the new OGA to be put in place swiftly. The industry is concerned that the investment allowance the Chancellor is expected to announce in the March Budget will not be nearly enough at current oil prices, and we share that concern.
It has also become evident that an early commitment to reduce the supplementary charge rate would have the benefit of instilling confidence in operators and the sector, while discouraging premature decommissioning, which is obviously important for future work in the North sea. To significantly enhance the industry’s long-term competitiveness, we have recommended that, at the very least, the industry requires a reversal of the supplementary charge increase implemented by the Government in 2011.
That substantial package of measures should be announced without delay to safeguard investment, jobs and the long-term sustainability of the North sea. If it is not forthcoming, UK Government policy on the industry will be found seriously wanting once again. Despite what other Members say, reform of the fiscal regime must not wait until the Budget, but must be implemented now, and that should include a commitment from the UK Government to a substantial reduction in the supplementary charge rate.
Universal Postal Service
Debate between Mike Weir and Robert Smith(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I fully support the motion. From what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) said, the Greater London authority’s motion also sounds interesting and worthy of support.
The universal service obligation is vital to rural areas of Scotland. It is crucial not only for those who receive mail, but for the many small businesses that rely on the service to get their products to customers. The internet is a two-way street, but only if there is a reliable and cost-effective postal service. We are now told that that service is in imminent danger.
We should not be in this position. The danger to the universal service following the extension of competition, the privatisation of Royal Mail and the Postal Services Act 2011 was entirely predictable and, indeed, predicted. The only surprise is that it is happening so soon. Royal Mail cannot escape all blame because, when the Act was going through this House, we were told repeatedly by the Government and Royal Mail that it would not endanger the universal service. They were adamant that the modernisation project would keep prices down and protect the USO. They said that the existence of the USO was a huge plus for the business.
Less than a year after the flotation, Royal Mail is finding that the brave new world of private enterprise is full of difficulties. The company wants Ofcom to undertake an urgent review of the USO because it cannot guarantee that it will remain sustainable due to the impact of privatisation and, in particular, the expansion of TNT, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran described in great detail that I will not repeat. Other competitors are cherry-picking the most profitable routes, which is putting pressure on Royal Mail and on its rural routes. That is a far cry from the claim when it was privatised that the universal service was a huge plus for Royal Mail, as it was the only company that guaranteed that it would deliver to every address.
Ofcom’s role, as set out in the 2011 Act, is bound by conditions that mean that, even if it takes on board Royal Mail’s request to look at the operation of the USO, there is no guarantee that it will take urgent action to tackle the problem. Royal Mail is seeking a review by Ofcom under section 45 of the Act, which is headed, “Fairness of bearing burden of universal service obligations”. I remind Members that the options that Ofcom has under those provisions are very limited. The first limitation is that it will inevitably take time for Ofcom to undertake the necessarily detailed review of the universal service. If Royal Mail is correct about the impact that TNT is having, do we have time to wait for Ofcom to decide whether to undertake the review, come to a conclusion and bring in its changes?
Sir Robert Smith
On that point, it would obviously make sense that the sooner it starts, the sooner it will be able to finish the review.
Mr Weir
I do not disagree with that; in fact, I am very keen for it to start, but even with the best will in the world, given previous investigations of this nature, it will take time, and time may be what we do not have. Does anyone really believe that it will be done in a few months? What will be the state of the USO if it takes 18 months or even two years to undertake such a review? What will Ofcom do? Does anyone in the Chamber really believe that the Government would go to competitor companies and say, “You cannot continue to expand” or “You must contract”? I very much doubt that.
It seems to me that its options under the 2011 Act are constrained. Under section 8—no one has mentioned this point so far—the Government could review the minimum requirements in terms of section 33, and therefore reduce the minimum requirements of the service. We should remember that under section 29 of the Act, at all times when securing the universal service Ofcom must also take into account
“the need for the provision of a universal postal service to be financially sustainable,”.
Does that not also open the door, for example, to raising the price of the universal service? I have previously made the point that with the abandonment of price controls over all other services, second-class post is now the only truly universal service, and even that could be at risk under the proposals. Many small businesses have already seen a rise in costs since privatisation, with an increase in first-class costs and small package rates.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) recently sponsored a meeting in this House at which Royal Mail presented its case for a review of the USO. I asked it directly whether it was seeking a diminution of the USO, but it denied that. I cannot say that I entirely believed that, but we must be aware that it is one possible outcome of a review, whether or not that is the company’s intention.
Scotland’s Place in the UK
Debate between Mike Weir and Robert Smith(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee on recognising the importance of addressing this issue.
I want to take a positive approach to Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. It has played a dynamic role and it is one that has evolved. With 300 years of common history, we have still got our distinctive legal system, our distinctive education system, our national identity, and we have recreated our own Parliament to deal with those issues that directly affect us in our lives in Scotland, so we do, as the slogan says, get the best of both worlds: a say in those decisions that affect us that are taken at the UK level, and a say in those decisions that affect us directly in Scotland in the Scottish Parliament.
In putting the positive case for voting no, I return to what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) said, and point out that the best and simplest way of keeping the pound sterling is to remain part of the UK. That is most easily achieved by voting no in the referendum. It gives us a say in how our currency is managed and it keeps us part of a borderless fully internal market, with a more diversified economy. The banking crisis reminded us that Scotland’s heavy dependency on the financial services sector—a great achievement by many people working in that sector—presents a challenge when it goes wrong. It was the rest of the UK’s economy and diversification that helped to sustain us through that crisis.
The oil and gas industry is also a great success story in Scotland, as the former Secretary of State my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) mentioned. It is a great technical achievement and there are a lot of people with a lot of skills and the work they do has a lot of export potential. It is also a very unstable source of revenue to the economy, however, because it depends on the global oil price. When the price is high, the economy does well. When the price is low, being part of a larger economy, when other parts of the economy can benefit from the low oil price, gives the ability to transfer resources and sustain the economy. The UK’s diversified economy also allows us to come up with tax incentives to stimulate exploration, forgoing cash flow now for long-term benefits.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about being part of a larger economy. Norway is not part of a larger economy. Is he suggesting it is not successful with its oil and gas and its general economy?
Sir Robert Smith
Norway is far more dominated by the oil and gas sector and has a successful economy, but if there is a downturn in the oil price Scotland does not have the economic resources and reserves to take that hit, yet we have the benefit of being part of a wider, dynamic, more diversified UK economy—and we will be, too, when the oil eventually runs out.
As has been mentioned, we also have access to a global network of embassies and trade missions that work positively to benefit Scotland and promote Scottish trade and investment in Scotland. We will continue to enjoy that positive benefit if we vote no in the referendum.
As has been highlighted in recent speeches, the business community does not have a vote in the referendum. The referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide Scotland’s future. It is one person, one vote and it is up to the people of Scotland to make that decision, but they are entitled to know the concerns of business. We want to hear the voices of business. Yes they cannot tell people how to vote, and yes they cannot dictate the result of the referendum, but if they remain silent and then quietly implement what they plan to do in the event of a yes vote in the referendum, the people of Scotland will have voted for a future without knowing the consequences and being able to take that on board. It is therefore extremely important that the business voices have the courage to speak up and inform the debate so people can make a clear and decisive choice in the referendum.
Delivery Surcharges (Transparency for Consumers) Bill
Debate between Mike Weir and Robert Smith(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Robert Smith
The hon. Gentleman has summed up extremely well the nature and purpose of the Bill. It is about transparency, so that shoppers do not have to spend ages shopping online only to discover at the end of the process, having put in all that effort, that they will have to face excessive charges, and then have to shop around elsewhere. The other benefit of early notification will be to encourage retailers to think more carefully about how they calculate those charges and about the nature of those charges.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
In parts of Scotland, postcodes cover a huge area. For example, the DD8 to DD11 postcodes cover my constituency. I live in DD9. Brechin, the town in which I live, is just off the main road between Dundee and Aberdeen, but the postcode covers the whole area of the Glens. That is part of the problem.
Sir Robert Smith
It is indeed. Postcodes exist for Royal Mail’s purposes, to allocate addresses, but many people piggy-back on to them and then do not recognise the need to be more sophisticated and break them down further in order to establish the true nature of deliveries. Citizens Advice Scotland noted that it was possible for a delivery van to travel from a retailer in England to Edinburgh via the borders, passing houses whose occupants would end up paying excessive charges because they were further away from Edinburgh, although the van was passing their front doors and could have dropped the stuff off without having to go to Edinburgh. A resident of Inverness had to pay a £25 delivery charge despite living just two miles from the Inverness postal depot. Another highlands resident was shocked to discover when ordering a gift certificate from an electronics and camera retailer that there was a £15 charge for delivery, although the certificate was simply a postal card for which the normal rate could have been charged. That is another classic example of the failure of retailers to think when shopping around for delivery purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to introduce more transparency and clarity. It requires the making of regulations, but does not introduce them itself; it allows the Government a year following its enactment in which to negotiate, consult and present the regulations to the House, which would then prescribe an early declaration of the charges for regional delivery so that shoppers could decide immediately whether or not to use a business advertised on a certain website.
Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments
Debate between Mike Weir and Robert Smith(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on choosing this subject. With winter fast approaching, this is an issue that will clearly be on many of our constituents’ minds. Although it has been unseasonably warm in my part of Scotland, we must realise that the winter is still ahead of us and we face the challenge of yet again trying to heat our homes. I declare an interest to the House. In the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have noted oil and gas industry interests which are relevant to this debate.
As has become apparent in the debate, fuel poverty is made up of a combination of three pillars: the cost of the energy itself, the income of the household, and the quality of the houses that people live in and are trying to heat. All three of those factors need tackling, and attempts have been made to do so over the years. I suspect that one of the mistakes probably made by all of us, but particularly by the previous Government, was relying on the cost of energy as the main platform for tackling fuel poverty in a period when competition brought down energy prices. We did not realise the need to get our housing stock well and truly up to standard to ensure that, when prices went back up, people would be able to afford to heat their homes because they would not need so much energy. The energy efficiency of homes and our housing stock is a crucial factor in building the long-term foundations for tackling the problem once and for all.
In the run-up to this winter, the Government are rightly trying to concentrate on making sure that energy bills are as low as possible by pushing for an end to the complexity. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made clear, many people do not know how to shop around. They are faced with myriad complex tariffs and offers and are lured in to sign up to new contracts and, after that, a rising tariff. One of the ways of improving the markets and ensuring that at least bills are no higher than they should be is to have clearer tariffs and an end to the complexity.
The other problem is that of houses not on the gas grid. It would be interesting to hear, perhaps in the reply to the debate, whether anything can be done in Northern Ireland to extend the gas grid. If we can get more people on to the gas main, it will at least ensure that they have one of the most reasonable fuels for heating their homes in the immediate future.
However, not every house will be on the gas grid and we will have to tackle the problem of those that are not. Consumers of grid heating fuels such as gas and electricity have a market in which Ofgem—the regulator—and the rules consider how vulnerable customers are treated, and vulnerable customers cannot be disconnected in the winter. However, following the Office of Fair Trading inquiry and all the other reports on the off-grid, I am concerned that heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas suppliers do not have the same constraints on their market in terms of how they handle vulnerable customers and their relationship with them.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. He may remember that, in the previous Parliament, the excuse was always that that market was made up of smaller companies. Does he agree that that is no longer so? In many cases, suppliers have a virtual monopoly, and it is high time that the same sort of tariffs were introduced into that market as those that exist in the electricity and gas markets.
Sir Robert Smith
One can certainly buy from a lot of brands, but when one gets behind them and finds out who the beneficial owner is, one learns that it is not necessarily a different company. There is still scope for considering something we pursued when the hon. Gentleman and I were both on the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change in the previous Parliament, and that is whether Ofgem should have some kind of locus in relation to off-grid customers as well as on-grid customers. It is certainly worth pursuing with the Secretary of State and Ofgem whether there is any way it can be involved in that market to improve the treatment of vulnerable customers.
I welcome the warm home discount because, obviously, that targets a saving that goes some way to counteract the loss of income. However, we must recognise that the long-term pressures are upward for energy prices, which brings us back to the need to tackle the quality of homes. There is a hope that shale gas may have the potential to assist with energy prices in the medium term, but the reality is that we have to prepare for a world where energy prices are higher. Therefore, in terms of targeting resources, I welcome the cold weather payment being maintained at the higher level because that at least targets those who have the most need most effectively.
The take-up of benefits is crucial and we need to reinforce the campaigns and the different ways of engaging with customers. The data sharing on pensioners between energy companies and the Government is going some way towards trying to identify those vulnerable customers. The energy companies that are doing benefit audits of their customers have shown that such an approach can greatly improve a household’s income. Pensioner take-up of targeted benefits needs to be improved, as does the information. We need to try to get across to people the message that these payments are entitlements, not gifts. People are entitled to these payments and they should not feel in any way inhibited from claiming them, because they have been paid for and they are meant to be claimed. If they were claimed, the problem of fuel poverty would be reduced.
Information is also crucial in trying to get people’s homes up to standard. There is still a lot of reluctance to engage, even when energy efficiency is free. With the upheaval and the uncertainty, people do not have the confidence to let someone into their home to interfere with the fabric of their building. We need to give people more reassurance that the long-term benefits of improving the energy efficiency of their home will give them a stable future when it comes to fuel bills.
Fuel Poverty (Rural Britain)
Debate between Mike Weir and Robert Smith(14 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I am very pleased to take part in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on obtaining it. This is an important issue. I was interested in the concept of building a new Jerusalem in Suffolk Coastal.
I have raised the issue of fuel poverty many times in Parliament and the stock answer that I normally get from Ministers about off-grid gas is that they are taking action to ensure the extension of the gas grid. However, in reality, many of my constituents will never have access to the gas grid. It will never go to the glens of Angus, or to many other parts of rural Scotland, especially the islands, however much it is extended. There is no option for those constituents but to rely on liquefied petroleum gas, home fuel gas or some other alternative fuel. It has been estimated that some 4.3 million consumers—mostly, but importantly, not exclusively in rural areas—are not on the gas network. In some areas, although the gas network is technically available, the cost of connection to it is prohibitive and people cannot do it.
Consumers who are off the gas network face particular problems. A typical gas bill is now rising to around £1,000 a year, but it has been estimated that those who are off-grid face bills of about £1,700 a year. That is a significant difference. I refer hon. Members to the table in the report on fuel poverty produced just before the general election by the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. It relates only to England, but it shows the extent of the problem of cost between different fuel sources.
Sir Robert Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the differential could become a more serious problem? Given the changing nature of the world market for natural gas, with shale gas and liquefied natural gas potentially bringing the price down in Europe, and if we ensure that the market works and those on the gas main get the benefit of a lower gas price feeding through, it will be all the more important to tackle the situation for people who do not have mains gas, because fuels such as oil and coal are not necessarily following the market down.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, but there are other pressures, not least climate change, against the extension of the use of gas. The Government are only now considering the decarbonisation of the gas supply and generation from gas. Many issues arise in connection with that.
There are many excellent schemes to help with insulation and energy efficiency, and many homes in rural areas are hard to treat, which exacerbates the situation. The Select Committee report noted that Ministers in the previous Government said that they were very enthusiastic about innovative technologies to tackle the problem, but we expressed disappointment at the slow pace of implementation. I do not think that the Government have yet responded to that report, and it will be interesting to hear what the new Minister has to say.
As has been mentioned, people who are off the grid do not have the same access to the social tariffs as mains gas customers. I accept to some extent that they have access to electricity tariffs, but many off-grid consumers use home fuel oil or LPG as the main fuel for heating their homes and water, and that is likely to be the major part of their energy spending. They do not get the full benefit that others do for those things.
The Department’s annual report on fuel poverty statistics for 2009 states:
“The highest proportion of fuel poverty is amongst households without gas, where nearly 23 per cent of households are fuel poor, compared to around 17 per cent of both standard credit and pre-payment meter customers.”
In Scotland, the situation may be slightly worse because of geography and the lack of a grid in the highlands and islands. The latest Scottish house conditions survey states:
“Households that use electricity, oil or other fuel types (such as coal or peat) are around twice as likely as those who use gas to experience fuel poverty. Also, those who use... ‘other fuel types’ (not gas or electricity) are more than twice as likely to experience extreme fuel poverty than gas users”.
I understand that the number of off-grid customers in fuel poverty in Scotland is around 116,000—about 47% of all who are off-grid.
There are other problems than price. For example, in many areas customers have to make an up-front payment to get a supply—and many suppliers demand a minimum supply quantity. That can be a substantial sum, and those on low incomes cannot afford to pay up front. That causes another problem—people may be forced to go without as a result.
Those who use gas or electricity will have pipes and so on coming to them, but those who use some of the alternative fuels find in bad weather that it is difficult to get a supply. It is interesting to note that in the recent harsh weather the Department for Transport had to allow a derogation from the driving hours regulations to enable deliveries to be made in many parts of Scotland and northern England. However, this is a long-running issue.
At the conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Energy Act 2008, the Energy Minister, the former Member for Stafford, arranged a meeting of representatives of the various bodies concerned with the matter. There seemed to be a willingness to consider things, but frankly the problem lies in difficulties caused by the nature of the market, which has already been touched on. That market is very different from that for domestic gas and electricity, and we need to find ways around the problem because those consumers have fallen through the cracks.
The domestic electricity and gas market is dominated by the six big energy companies, and it is easy to get social tariffs from them. The market for other fuels is much more diffuse and difficult to regulate. However, in many areas I would question whether there is real competition, as there is effectively only one supplier. With recent amalgamations in Scotland, the situation is getting worse. We need radical solutions to tackle the problem.
The Minister may remember that, during consideration in Committee of the Energy Act 2010, I suggested how the matter might be dealt with. Section 10 of the Act allows the Secretary of State to introduce a reconciliation mechanism, such that if one company had more fuel-poor customers than the others, it would not be particularly badly hit. The burden would be spread among all companies and, as far as possible, each would meet an equitable amount of the cost of meeting their obligations under the social tariff.
That principle is a good one, and it could be extended to cover all fuel suppliers, allowing a general sharing of the cost of meeting the obligation to help the fuel poor. Because of the difficulties in that particular market, it would not be easy to introduce individual social tariffs, but a general reconciliation mechanism would bring suppliers within the ambit of the scheme. Allowing the overall cost to be shared between all the energy suppliers would enable us to make progress and extend the social tariff concept to that disadvantaged group.
That is a radical way to deal with the problem. Otherwise, it will always be filed under the “too difficult” heading and nothing will be done. Such a mechanism would ensure that the cost were shared more widely—as the benefits would be. It would ensure that all energy suppliers could operate equivalent social tariffs for all their customers, whether they used electricity, gas or other forms of fuel. In what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said are troubled times, Ministers might be attracted by the fact that it would have a revenue-neutral approach for the Treasury. It would not impose a greater burden on the taxpayer, but I can already hear the howls of protest from the major energy companies. However, it would deal with what has become a most intractable problem.
As was suggested by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), the problem will get worse. Whether we like it or not, the price of fuel will continue to rise as we try to move to a low-carbon economy. We will effectively be subsidising various renewables and possibly—and unfortunately—nuclear power, which will have an impact on all electricity bills. I ask the Minister to consider the suggestion.
In another aside—I realise that this is strictly not within the Minister’s brief—the Select Committee report suggested that we should consider how the winter fuel payment is made. It is paid in the winter, the most expensive quarter. For many off-grid customers, winter is not the best time to be given that money. If they were to receive it earlier in the year, they could buy oil or other fuels in bulk when they were cheaper. That would allow them to stockpile for the winter. Staggering the payment for off-grid customers would allow them to take advantage of cheaper prices. Again, importantly, it would be revenue-neutral for the Treasury.
I am trying to be helpful to the Minister by not simply calling for more spending; I am calling for us to consider things in a new way and to look at more radical solutions. If we do not, we shall continue to file the problem under the heading “too difficult” and nothing will happen to help those people. That would be a wasted opportunity, and fuel poverty would continue to increase in rural areas throughout the United Kingdom.
Nuclear Energy
Debate between Mike Weir and Robert SmithWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Robert Smith
Historically, the nuclear industry has required public subsidy for the purposes of trying and testing. Even the great white hope in Finland, which was meant to show how the market could deliver, has turned out to need an underpinning of public subsidy. I recognise that the carbon market is an important way of incentivising whatever means of low-carbon electricity generation comes before us, and anything that can be done to get a better price for carbon will be an important part of driving forward alternative energy supplies.
I must declare an interest here as a shareholder in Shell. I also represent the north-east of Scotland, where the oil and gas industry is extremely important. The hon. Gentleman said that he was worried about us relying on gas. This Government will have to address one of the legacies of the previous Government and make sure that we maximise our own gas production, because in that way we will reduce any immediate worries about having to rely on imported gas.
Moreover, the Government must recognise that the big change resulting from the near-decoupling of the oil and gas markets following the discovery of the means of producing shale gas—a new means of producing gas—is altering the whole concern about a further dash for gas. Gas is one of the cleaner fuels. Although it produces CO2 , it produces less than other fuels. Therefore, it can play an important part in our electricity mix without too much concern.
Mr Weir
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I agree with him in many ways, but does he not accept the point that raising carbon prices will affect the cheapness of gas? It will substantially push up the price because gas is a fossil fuel and will be hard hit if we put a floor on the carbon price to benefit nuclear power.
Sir Robert Smith
What the hon. Gentleman has to accept is that we want a low-carbon future. Can he suggest a mechanism other than putting a price on carbon? The EU has embraced the idea of putting a price on carbon as the only means of producing a low-carbon future for the European Union.
Mr Weir
The EU has not accepted a floor price for carbon, as is proposed by the coalition Government. So we may have a position in which the UK is the only country trying to impose a floor price for carbon while remaining within the emissions trading scheme. I cannot see how that is workable.
Sir Robert Smith
That is why we have to convince the EU that, if it is going to deliver on a low-carbon agenda and if it has embraced the ETS, it will have to put a floor on carbon to make the ETS deliver the treaty commitments and other commitments to having a low-carbon future.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West said that the world is facing the major problem of there being too much carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. There is no way of not putting CO2 into the atmosphere unless we are willing to pay the costs of producing alternatives to CO2. Nuclear is one alternative, which we do not think is the right alternative, but marine renewables also need a floor on carbon—all low-carbon energy systems, if they are going to take off and be delivered, will need a floor on carbon. That is the only way. The EU has decided to embrace the ETS and unless we actually make the ETS work, we will not deliver on all our commitments.