Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022 Energy Bills Support Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022 Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022 Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022 Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments 2022

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 General Committees

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I also want to raise a couple of issues about the technicalities of the scheme. I agree with my county colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, that the measures are important and need to be passed through as soon as possible. As somebody who has two sets of park homes in my constituency, I am particularly keen to see them benefit from the subsidies to protect them from an energy point of view.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. These are quite complicated regulations when one ploughs through them—I tried this afternoon. I want to understand what the impact will likely be on individuals who are resident, for example, in a care home and for whom there is a service charge calculation as part of the bill levied on them for their residence in the care home. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister knows, in most care homes there are those who are paid for by the state and therefore protected by the state—to a certain extent their charges are supervised by the state—and those who are there on a private basis and might not have families or others who are close to the action and able to see the impact on their bills.

My other questions are about the technicalities. In providing the subsidy at this time to families up and down the land, the Government are recognising that timing matters. Having the money at the point when someone has to pay it out to their energy supplier matters because cash flow for many people is critical. Some of the regulations refer to timing, but the legislation is not as exacting as the obligation it places on what it calls intermediaries—landlords. The best it can come up with is

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

My hon. Friend the Minister, who I know has a long track record in the property industry, knows that the timing of cash flow, particularly for large landlords such as park home owners, is critical, and it would be possible for them to string out the payment of the subsidies, after having received them themselves for some time, in order to gain a cash flow advantage. As he reviews the operation of the legislation will he consider an absolute requirement that, on receipt, the subsidy should be passed through at the very next billing opportunity, rather than being held for six or nine months? How soon is “reasonably practicable”? “I am terribly sorry, your honour. We were terribly overworked.”

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It seems that in a case where the intermediary has received the money, interest is payable to the resident if it has not been paid over within 60 days. Does my right hon. Friend think that that is perhaps an indication of what a reasonable period is thought to be?

[Kit Malthouse]

It may well be, but, as I say, regulation 3, paragraph 2 in part 2, states that an intermediary

“must ensure that as soon as reasonably practicable after a scheme benefit has been provided”.

As interest rates rise, it would be perfectly possible for a landlord to say, “Do you know what? I’m getting 3% on my money, particularly as it is a large amount. My cost in holding it is only 2%. I have a bit of a carry there.” While my right hon. and learned Friend is right that the 60 days indicated in the legislation is “practicable”, that is quite a long time for somebody to shoulder an energy bill, particularly if there are quarterly billings, for example. It would therefore be possible for me to pay my bill in one quarter and not receive the subsidy until the following quarter, which is a three-month carry—or possibly more, if the timing is not right. Will the Minister comment on that timing?

The other issue I want to raise is about enforcement because, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, mentioned, enforcement is through the civil courts, which means the small claims court for most people. That carries a minimum charge of £35, takes time and creates delay. It would be perfectly possible for a landlord to say, “Well, I’ll tough it out. The subsidy is only 200 quid. My tenant has to shell out 35 quid and put in a submission to the small claims court. That will take a while to work its way through the system and then, at the last minute, I will agree to pay.” I do not understand why there is not an absolute liability enforceable on the landlord to pay, either by the local authority or others.

Finally, I want to raise the rather strange obligation on the intermediary to show that

“the pass-through it has effected…is just and reasonable, and in so doing it is entitled to take into account the extent to which its charges to end users reflect the increased cost of energy as a result of the energy crisis.”

We are all aware that lots is going on in the world of energy and that prices have risen. If an elderly resident of a park home has that in their mind, to the extent that they have been assiduous about their consumption of energy—they have turned their heating off and tried to drive down their bill as much as possible—it is conceivable that their energy costs this year could be lower than last year. If they had not read the newspapers or did not know about this legislation, it would not necessarily be clear that they would be entitled to a subsidy, notwith-standing that the cost of the energy they had used this year was lower in terms of the cost to the landlord than it was last year.

I am not a lawyer, although there are eminent lawyers in the room, but in those circumstances would the landlord be able to say, “Last year, tenant, you were paying 400 quid; this year, because you have been parsimonious, you are only paying 300 quid. Therefore, you are better off so I will pocket your subsidy.” I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I will not be venturing any legal opinion, but I understand that the three national associations of park home residents already provide a certain amount of legal help and advice to residents and residents’ associations. Have the Minister and his colleagues had the opportunity to be in touch with such associations, with the idea of ensuring that park home residents are aware of their rights under these regulations and that they would be able to take action in the county court—maybe even by producing a simple form to report claims, so that that can be done easily?

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend and I agree with him. However, anything that goes to court, as he will know because he has made a profession of it, is arguable. Obviously, the legislation is drawn to make it arguable; I do not understand why there is not an absolute liability.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I fully understand my right hon. Friend’s point. The problem with this area is the Mobile Homes Act 1983. There have always been criticisms of the relationships involved in park homes, as it is not the same as home ownership or being a tenant. Having said that, the legislation is an attempt to do something in this difficult area to try to ensure that park home residents get their help with energy costs; I wish the regulations well and I would not want to stop them happening. Is there a way of helping some of the residents with the legislation? My right hon. Friend’s point that many of them are vulnerable and elderly is true.

New Pylons: East Anglia

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is completely right, but the real question is: to whom do we go to get it done? National Grid says it is locked into a regulatory and planning framework and has to operate in a certain way—that the assumption must be that overhead pylons are the right solution, unless there are other reasons.

The most difficult thing in the whole process is that not even the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), is accountable for what is being decided; he will tell us, “This is the framework and this is what we have to stick to.” He will then tell us that there is going to be a new proposal for a different regime that would arrive at different outcomes, but that is not going to affect this consultation, and we will be left with decisions being forced down corralled pathways by an outdated regulatory and planning framework.

Who is accountable, today, for the decisions that are being made? Who is it? Who should we go to, and say, “You’ve got it wrong and you can change it”? If nobody can change it, it must be my right hon. Friend the Minister who is accountable. He must accelerate the new regime, which would allow us to look much more comprehensively and capably at a strategic plan. There is no controlling strategic mind in charge of planning the national grid. It is just something that happens, through an outdated market mechanism that was designed to sweat the assets of an industry that had far too much capacity in the 1980s.

We are now in a completely different world. We need a strategic planning framework, and it should be located, accountably, within the Department, so that Members of Parliament can hold Ministers accountable for what is being decided, instead of us just being shoved off into the system, where we do not seem to have any influence.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I express my condolences to my hon. Friend? I am so sorry to hear his news.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a wider problem? Losing the quality of our environment is a big cost for people’s wellbeing. In this case it is utilities and electricity; in Hertfordshire, it is about the chalk streams. No value seems to be given to environmental factors. We have regulators, but it is all about doing it cheaply. Does he agree that the Government need to look at the issue again, from the point of view of wellness, the environment and preserving the really valuable things in our communities?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I could not agree more. We have environmental policies and net zero policies that are costing the earth, even though they are designed to save the earth—they are very important policies and we put a great deal of money into them—and yet we have other policies that despoil the environment and communities. The damage they do is not costed into the proposals.

In a new regime, the effect on property prices, the loss of agricultural land and other non-monetised costs of the proposal need to be reflected in the costs; I think we would then find that the offshore transmission system would provide better value for money, and for the environment and communities. If it was worked out properly, an offshore ring main around the east of England down to London, with its connectivity, an interconnectedness to the continent, and direct connectivity from the onshore nuclear power stations and the new offshore East Anglia array—incidentally, the development of offshore wind is being held back by the lack of capacity in the national grid—could be the quickest proposal, because we would not have the same planning issues that we are tied up with here.

Dare I mention the words “judicial review”? If my constituents go for a judicial review—they are very well funded and well organised, and we are backing them—how many years will that hold up the proposal? Would it not be better for the Government to cut through and say we should go for an offshore grid, which has public support and which people recognise will help us to achieve our net zero targets more quickly and protect the environment and communities? That is what we should do.

The main point I will leave the debate with is that public opposition to infrastructure risks undermining the roll-out of renewable and nuclear power. The Government must balance what is best for local communities with what appears to be cheapest. The current approach is not serving my constituents in Harwich and North Essex. The current proposals, and the regime they reflect, command no public confidence at all in the Government of this country, and should change.

Domestic Building Works (Consumer Protection) Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In a debate in which we will talk about the activities of some possibly not-so-enhancing builders, I wish to start by saying what is good and brilliant about builders. Builders constructed the place in which we work, which is a testament to the building trades. They build our homes, workplaces, communal spaces, places of worship and recreational facilities. They build things of utter joy and things of absolute necessity. In short, they are extraordinarily important not just to our society but to our entire way of life.

There are enormous numbers of opportunities in the building trade for many different people. The skills involved range from those of the extraordinary artisans who do stunning carvings to those of the people who help with some of the most menial tasks. Were it not for this mainly manual industry, many people who prefer to work with their hands—who may not have found academia to be something for them—may not have found any gainful and worthwhile employment. The building trade is as important for those who work in it as it is for those of us who need its services. With 1.3 million people working in the industry in the UK, it is an incredibly valuable source of income for millions of workers and their families.

The industry is very wide. We have all seen large developments of homes or other buildings being carried out by well-established, well-resourced and well-run construction companies that take responsibility for their actions. When things go wrong, they have large legal departments and the processes seem to work well, on the whole. However, I am keen to concentrate on the smaller, domestic and small-business end of the market. The sector known as the repair, maintenance and improvement sector—RM&I—is where we see lurid and appalling stories of people’s lives ruined after taking on dodgy builders. There are countless stories in the press, and TV shows have been made that specialise in such problems.



I could turn to any number of articles in the national and regional press that talk about cowboy builders. A relatively simple search for stories about rogue builders reveals 1,500 such stories from the past five years alone, and that is just those stories that make the press. We could chat to almost anyone who has had any building work done, and they will roll their eyes in frustration at the problems they have had. However, we do not have to rely on hearsay and the media to understand the problem and its implications. The Federation of Master Builders, which I have been working with, conducts surveys to see the effect of this issue on the RM&I market. A recent poll of homeowners discovered that one in three were put off having building work done on their home by the fear of being ripped off. That equates to a potential £10 billion of lost economic activity every year, as a result of the fear of being ripped off by rogue builders. I can see why and there are any number of examples. My constituent, Gillian Smith, and her husband came to see me last week about their experience with Bromsgrove Construction and Development Ltd. They showed me some pretty appalling photographs of how the back end of their house is falling down as a result of appalling behaviour. They are now entering into a huge problem in trying to resolve that issue.

The consumer is not the only victim of the rogue cowboy builder. In the industry, many find themselves victims of the same problems as consumers, and subcontractors find that they are not paid or subject to poor safety standards. Merchants are the same, and plant hire companies are frequently the victims of theft or the abuse of equipment. Alarmingly, health and safety is a low priority among many SME building firms that operate within the RM&I market. While large firms working on major commercial and civil engineering projects have embraced health and safety legislation, a blitz of small refurbishment sites by Health and Safety Executive inspectors in 2016 found that a stunning 49% of sites fell below the standards set to comply with health and safety requirements.

More alarmingly, that cavalier attitude to health and safety reveals the potential problem of cowboy builders leaving dangerous sites. When someone builds an extension, might someone else be risking life and limb when they climb those stairs to go to bed one evening? Poor-quality building results not just in shoddy work, but potentially in work that is fatally dangerous. Cowboy builders also have an effect beyond their own unhappy activities. By undercutting those reputable builders who make up the majority of the market, they force high-standard builders to cut their margins to compete for work. Price competition is fine, but not when a worthwhile and reputable SME builder is competing against someone with no care for safety, honesty, or customer satisfaction. Given that the RM&I market is dominated by occasional customers, it is likely that the key element of choice is price. Unhealthy price competition drives down standards, even if those reputable firms are unhappy at being forced to cut standards to compete.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend also want to say a word about the environmental consequences? Is it not right that a number of extensions are built with the rainwater directed into the sewers? We have been talking about the result of that over recent weeks.

[Mark Garnier]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The implications of cowboy or rogue builders who do not build to standard are unbelievably widespread—indeed, that opens another interesting debate about inspections by local councils in terms of the amount of work done, and there is a completely different debate about that to ensure that building standards have been maintained. Sometimes there are questions about whether some councils examine building standards properly, and my right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point.

How does the victim of the rogue builder seek redress? The answer, as it turns out, is not simple. In the first instance they could go to trading standards, but with a rogue builder being, by definition, a rogue, the sanctions available are weak at best. Ultimately, the home or small business owner who has found themselves the victim of a rogue builder has no other recourse than the courts.

This is the point at which it is really important that I declare my interest. There has been much debate of late about Members’ experiences—I think you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we discussed the Domestic Abuse Bill, and we heard a stunning speech from the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) about her experience, which was very valuable. When someone finds themself the victim of a rogue builder, they suddenly discover that they are in an extraordinary Kafkaesque world of misery, and trying to deal with legal practitioners, professionals and all the rest of it. I was going to speak at length about my first-hand experience but, frankly, it is important to move along in the interest of the next debate. Suffice it to say that, apart from anything else, as Members of Parliament we find ourselves subject to blackmail, threats to break into our property to recover items that we have already paid for and multiple final bills—in my case multiple fictitious final bills. The list goes on and on, and it becomes unbelievably depressing and wearing, as we find ourselves having to deal with the problem and, ultimately, there is no justice.

The fundamental fault with the whole system is that contract law simply does not work for people with problems bigger than the small claims court, which is fine, but below a value of £1 million. The reality of the situation is that anyone can make up a fictitious account that they want us to pay and we have to negotiate. In addition, if we want to get redress against a builder, we have to go to court and seek legal action. It works both ways. It is not just about bad building standards; it is also about builders’ bad business practices and vexatious bills.

To challenge or defend this type of bill requires a commitment of between £100,000 and £200,000 in legal fees, court fees and professional fees to demonstrate the loss and to provide the evidence. I have spoken to any number of friends and colleagues with very senior legal experience—this place is stuffed to the rafters with lawyers and barristers—and they all say that the type of problem I am facing, and that hundreds of thousands of people face, has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with trying to achieve a negotiated settlement.

International Climate Action

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the hon. Lady for her collegiate approach; I think we should attempt to continue in that vein. She will know that we have more than 10 GW of onshore wind capacity in the UK. No doubt she knows also that just a couple of weeks ago we had a successful round of contracts for difference for offshore wind, showing costs of sub-£40 per MWh, which is extraordinary; when I was an Energy Minister only a few years ago, the cost of CfDs then was about £150 per MWh. The UK is leading the world. We should be proud of that. Of course, we will continue to look at all renewable technologies.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The Conservative Environment Network recently produced its manifesto. One of the proposals for a quick win on emissions is to increase the amount of ethanol in petrol to 10%, which would also help the British bioethanol industry, farmers and us all. Has my right hon. Friend considered that? Will she encourage the Transport Secretary to implement that measure? It would be equivalent to taking 700,000 cars off the road.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am aware of the idea my right hon. and learned Friend mentions. I am to meet the Secretary of State for Transport soon to talk about how we can speed up the decarbonisation of the transport system, and I am sure we will discuss it then.

Draft Statutory Auditors, Third Country Auditors and International Accounting Standards (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 General Committees

[Peter Grant]

No, I will not give way again. The hon. Lady will get a chance to speak if she wishes. I would be interested to know why the Government did not have that consultation. Why are they making significant changes to policy during a process that the House agreed could be used to make technical, consequential, minor and non-controversial changes, of which there would need to be millions to get us even vaguely ready for 31 October? Why are they trying to put in much more significant and substantive changes that should have been tested on the Floor of the House before they passed into law?

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I can see that lots of Members want to speak, so perhaps the best thing is for me to sit down and give them a chance to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As part of our ongoing engagement with stakeholders across all the Department’s responsibilities, we have regular dialogue with those organisations, whether it be on this statutory instrument or on any of the Department’s other business.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Is it not correct to say that the hon. Member for Glenrothes has not pointed in detail to a single complaint about these regulations, and his speech is just a general waffle? Does my hon. Friend agree that as the Scottish National party receives £1.2 million in Short money to do research on things like this, we should have a rebate?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right. The hon. Member for Glenrothes has not mentioned the particular point that we have made more expressive, as the ICAEW asked us to do, in these amended regulations. That is a clear example of where we have listened to the professionals in the industry and chosen to respond to their requests as clearly as we can.

Climate Change, the Environment and Global Development

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, but the Government set the target in “The Road to Zero” after consultation with industry and different groups. We came to it as a sensible target. We now have more than 200,000 electric vehicles on our roads and more than 20,000 charging points.

One thing that is overlooked when people think about the charging infrastructure is that, over the past few months, we have been installing 1,000 additional public charging points every month. We are starting to see a significant ramping up of progress, following announcements of investment in this area over successive years. Over £1.5 billion is being invested in the decarbonisation of cars in this country. In the months ahead, in addition to further Government announcements, we will start to see progress in this area.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have is a process in which the Committee on Climate Change is helping us by pointing out what we need to do next, and we are doing it? Recently, 80% by 2050 became 100%, so it is a process by which we are meeting our targets.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that point. Most of the committee’s critique of the Government is fair, but we are about to publish updates on 80% of the actions. In many we have signalled a clear policy intent, for example on future home standards. A lot of progress is being made, and I agree with his point.

On 27 June, we set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the UK by 2050. That world-leading target will bring to an end our contribution to climate change, and makes the UK the first major economy to legislate for a net zero target. The UK also has a strong track record on international development, through our legal commitment to provide 0.7% of our gross national income as official development assistance. Alongside efforts to reduce our own emissions, we have committed to work with developing countries, including as part of our ODA, to enable them to pursue clean growth and climate-resilient development. We are on track to provide £5.8 billion of climate aid—our international climate finance—to help developing countries tackle the causes and impacts of climate change between 2016 and 2020.

That climate aid is delivering real results. Since 2011, we have helped more than 47 million people cope with the effects of climate change and natural disasters. We have provided 17 million people with access to clean energy. But it is still not enough. As the International Development Committee noted, it is not a problem that can be solved by Government action alone. We need businesses, communities and individuals to also act. It will be really challenging: real shifts in behaviour and global ambition will be needed, and there can be no more business as usual.

The next few years are critical. That is why tackling the crisis has become such a high priority for the UK, and it is why we have offered to preside over the major UN climate summit next year—COP 26—in partnership with Italy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I thought I agreed with some of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) was saying until he started to couch his remarks in what seemed to be a somewhat cynical grab of this issue by Labour. He talked about attempting to reintroduce state control of industry and having a great deal more corporatism of the state kind at the heart of his policy. I became suspicious as the speech went on and suddenly realised that he was a great supporter of the shadow Chancellor, which made me even more suspicious. But anyway, enough of that. Although actually, it was a bit mean of him to criticise the Secretary of State when he is off in Africa visiting environmental projects—

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

He’s just annoyed that he wasn’t invited.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. But anyway—enough of this.

I want to talk about transport and climate change. The Committee on Climate Change has correctly identified the transport sector as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the UK and made a distinction with other sectors, such as power, heat and industrial, which have all seen year-on-year reductions in emissions, whereas transport has not decarbonised and its emissions are increasing. I am glad that the Government have come forward with proposals, but the UK’s transport infrastructure in all communities, large and small, is vital to boosting our productivity and cutting emissions, and change is needed. As a member of the Conservative Environment Network, I agree with our manifesto, which was launched last week and which I hope the Government will consider seriously. It states that the UK should have low carbon communities and low carbon industrial clusters, and that our communities should be connected by low carbon transport. Meanwhile, poor air quality in our cities is leading to a move out of diesel vehicles into petrol and petrol hybrid vehicles, which improves air quality but increases CO₂ emissions, which is putting the fourth carbon budget at risk of not being achieved by 2027.

A total modernisation of our transport network is an economic, environmental and public health priority.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I was just about to say how I would tackle the problem. Let me do that, then perhaps I will give way.

How do we tackle the problem? First, we have to bring forward the phase-out date for the sale of new petrol and diesel cars to at least 2035. Given the life cycle of a traditional car, the Committee on Climate Change is clear that ensuring that all cars and vans are electric by 2050, which is needed for net zero, will require all new vehicles to be electric by 2035, and I believe that is achievable. By 2025, new electric vehicles will have the same up-front cost as equivalent conventional models, and if we can get the infrastructure right by that point, there should be no reason for consumers not to buy an electric vehicle.

[Stephen Kerr]

My right hon. and learned Friend talks about air quality and electric vehicles. Should we have an ambitious target to eliminate internal combustion engine vehicles in our cities much sooner than the date he is suggesting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Certainly there is a key role for incentivising that. The advantage of electric vehicles is that they avoid those damaging types of pollution we are concerned about.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for mentioning road surface transport and the fact that our emissions are still increasing. He is absolutely right that we need the right infrastructure. Does he agree that what does not work is, for example, Highways England, in its recent consultation not even considering that it is its responsibility to provide the electricity grid needed to power electric cars? It is important that Departments work together and that Highways England takes responsibility for ensuring that we have the right electricity infrastructure.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I agree that co-ordination is crucial. The hon. Lady makes a good point about infrastructure.

To make that long-term target a reality, we need short-term policies to get us to the point where we can accelerate electrification of road transport. Important measures include providing Government-backed interest-free loans for electric vehicle purchase; creating incentives for the installation of ultra-rapid electric vehicle chargers at key strategic points, such as on the motorway network; a new tax on sales of non-electric vehicles after 2030; introducing the right as a tenant to request an electric vehicle charging point; and changing the sort of fuel we use in petrol or hybrid petrol cars. I support the campaign recently instigated by the all-party parliamentary group for British bioethanol, which has considerable support in the House, for a shift to 10% ethanol in standard petrol, which would deliver both emission reductions and UK jobs and which I see as part of the transition.

British bioethanol is created essentially from wheat in the north of England. The wheat would otherwise be used for animal feedstuff if, and only if, a high-protein additive such as soya were added to it. It cannot be used for human beings. The soya comes from South America, which touches on the point about the Brazilian rain forest, which makes these soya imports a subject of environmental concern. A by-product of making bioethanol from British wheat is a rich-in-protein animal feed, which displaces the soya. With total investment of £5 billion, two factories have been set up in the north of England, involving 5,000 jobs. One of them is mothballed and the other is running at half capacity as they wait for the Government to mandate E10 petrol—petrol with 10% ethanol. Forward-looking countries in Europe, Australia, Canada and the USA are already doing that; it is time we got on board. It is estimated that the reduction in carbon emissions from E10 being used as the UK’s standard petrol would be equivalent to taking 700,000 cars off the road; it would also be less polluting and protect British jobs. I know the Department for Transport has already consulted on this, but it should move quickly to make this change, certainly for 2020.

Let me now talk about the tax situation and how we deal with the change from fuel duty to a world of electric vehicles. As we shift to electric vehicles, the amount of revenue the Exchequer takes from fuel duty will naturally shrink. We need, therefore, to change how we pay for roads. Road pricing is based on the principle that those making use of public roads should pay a sum commensurate with costs involved. Ideally, the total sum should include the costs of air pollution and greenhouse gases as well. Sophisticated schemes also use live data to factor in congestion, and charge people more to drive during peak times on busy roads. There are existing schemes, such as in Singapore, that show that this can be done. So the Government should be looking at that as a possible way forward. By working with the power of market price signals, road pricing incentivises individuals to use cleaner fuel and to travel at times that are less damaging.

I shall turn now to regional rail networks and bus, tram and cycling services. The lack of decent transport outside London is a handbrake on UK growth. Local transport networks in towns and cities are woefully undeveloped compared with those in similar sized places in other countries. For example, Leeds is the largest city in the European Union with no mass transport system. Its twin city, Lille, has two metro lines, two tram lines, and an international high-speed rail connection. Fixing this disparity is critical to UK growth and to easing the pressure on housing demand in London. To meet net zero, we need a switch of freight from road to rail, and for commuters and travellers to feel confident to use low carbon transport.

I wish to mention a few strategic transport investments at this point. Surely the time has come to modernise the rail network across the Pennines—

[Andrew Stephenson]

Hear, hear.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The electrification of the rest of the midland main line is another that the Minister would probably agree with. What about the new super-tram network for Leeds? How long has Sheffield had its tram? As the Government engage in transformative infrastructure projects, it is important that they do not ignore local efforts to encourage active transport, such as cycling. I support cycling schemes, through Sustrans and the revamped cycle to work scheme.

In my North East Hertfordshire constituency, we have done a considerable amount to improve cycling facilities, but we want more. At a recent conference in Letchworth Garden City, the subject was “connectivity”. People were looking at how we can have connectivity in a low carbon way, and this involved new developments and how we fit them in with existing ones. Improving both the low carbon footprint of towns and industry, and the low carbon transport between them, was a key subject discussed.

[Sarah Newton]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that we should build on the success of the cycle ambition cities and make sure that that source of funding is available for towns, so that more people can walk and use bikes, including e-bikes, as part of an integrated public transport scheme in towns?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Yes, exactly so. A place such as Letchworth Garden City was designed with transport in mind from the very start, with Ebenezer Howard ensuring that the railway station was in the middle of the town and that there were cycle ways. In recent times, the numbers of cycling racks at the station and the green way have been enhanced; a lot has been done. My hon. Friend is right to say that if we want to meet our ambition of having proper connectivity, we need cycling, walking and low carbon public transport in order to effect the change.

[Gareth Thomas]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an interesting speech. I have been trying to keep pace with all his asks of the Chancellor in terms of costs—it is a serious list of asks. Does he not think there is a need for a serious debate, costed out, about the cost of decarbonising our transport network in the future? I agree with his proposals for investment in Leeds, and for Letchworth Garden City and his constituency. Other things are also needed for London and the funding simply is not there within the DFT’s budget, so an urgent plan to change that is essential.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Yes; of course, the purpose of the carbon budgets and some of the work of the Committee on Climate Change is exactly to tease out those effects. It is a good thing that the body that we set up to be independent, to give the Government advice and to hold their feet to the fire is doing just that—that is what it is there for. Yes, there are costs, but there are also gains. I just made the point about bioethanol; there is already investment in green jobs in the places where we want them, such as Teesside and the Humber. Those factories could generate more jobs and make money that could be taxed. At the moment, all that is being held back for want of a Government decision of an environmental kind. There is money to be had for the Government in terms of inputs, as well as just outputs, or debits. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to some extent, but we do have a process in hand.

Let me turn to light railway in the context of rural locations. I shall use the example of Buntingford, in my constituency, where housing numbers are being rapidly expanded—basically, planning is being allowed to double the size of the town—but there is no employment, or not much, because it is a rural community, and it does not have a train service. That means there will be many more car journeys, as the new homes go to commuters, who travel mainly to London and Cambridge. If we built a light rail link to Stevenage, people would have the option of going by public transport to the big town to shop or on the main line to work.

Of course, people think that light railway is bound to cost a fortune, because in a city it does—the land has to be bought, and it is incredibly expensive—but we need to look more at whether light railway can be done at a sensible price in a rural location. It would also have environmental and social benefits. I have asked Hertfordshire County Council, which is currently visioning its transport for 2050, to look into the idea, and also to look at whether there might be other possibilities for east-west routes in the county.

[Rachel Reeves]

Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) have mentioned my city of Leeds, so I feel I should stand up and say something. Three years ago we got the first new train station in Leeds for 30 years, and it has made a huge difference to Kirkstall in my constituency. Other new train stations could be opened on existing lines, including in Armley in my constituency. As well as some sort of tram network or underground system, simple things can be done in cities like Leeds, such as reopening train stations and opening new ones on existing lines.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am glad that the hon. Lady and I agree on this. In the area near North East Hertfordshire, Cambridge North station was recently opened, and that has had a good effect in respect of building the high-tech businesses in that part of Cambridge. That is another example of using the existing railway system but putting in new facilities.

This might be a bit controversial, but we need to consider as a society where we are going with our shopping behaviour. Walking, cycling or using a low carbon means of transport to visit a bricks-and-mortar shop in a high street is surely more environmentally sound than more and more vans delivering to our doorsteps. We need to consider that in the context of the incentives and disincentives applied by Government.

My hon. Friend the Minister referred to improved environmental fuel for aviation and to electric planes, and such things will happen. This is an enormous subject, but I just wanted to make it clear in my speech that tackling transport emissions is key if we are to meet the net zero carbon target by 2050.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as Britain is a leader and is looked to internationally on how to tackle this, if we were to crash the economy, were able to take only one long-haul flight a year and to have only one child, and so on and so forth, we would be seen as a country that had failed and nobody would follow our example? Does she agree that we have to be realistic?

[Gillian Keegan]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is absolutely key to be realistic. Again, technology does offer a lot of benefits that will help us to sustain our environment and to reduce the need for business travel—for example, by keeping in touch by other means.

The Government have shown that we can grow the economy and reduce the national carbon footprint. Since 2010, we have deployed 99% of the UK’s solar panels. We are now home to the world’s largest offshore wind capacity. In total, we have quadrupled our renewable output. It is not surprising that, last year, we produced over 37% of our energy from renewables, all while growing our economy.

Local authorities need to act, too. I am proud to say that Chichester District Council has voted that there is a climate emergency. Importantly, as Councillor Susan Taylor recently said, it will deliver action, not just words. The council is already seeking to employ a climate emergency officer, who will ensure that a plan is developed to reduce our carbon footprint.

We must not be complacent: we must do more locally, nationally, internationally and individually to grow a truly global green economy. Looking at the big picture, Britain has always been a world leader, and we must continue to build on our target-led, technology-driven approach. We were the innovators of the steam power that drove global industrial development, and we now owe it to the world to lead the renewable green revolution.

Climate Change

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend is right that the legislation today is not simply about warm words or passing a law. We need to be able to demonstrate the action that lies beneath it. Action will come relatively quickly with the publication of an energy White Paper in the summer that will look at the future of our energy supply, at a household level and an industrial level, and the energy network itself. The White Paper will demonstrate the action that the Government are taking and it will lead to a series of future consultations.

In order to lead the debate on climate change and demonstrate the global leadership that the UK wishes to have, it is right that the process highlights the need for clean growth. That is not oxymoronic: we can grow the economy at the same time as removing greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and ensuring that new, greener technologies and more renewable forms of energy come on board. It is right that we lead that conversation, that we reassure those who may be concerned about the future, and that we take action to demonstrate to those businesses worried about any economic impact that this transition is both just and sustainable.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

This measure is not long overdue but it is welcome, and I believe it will be very popular right across the country. Has my hon. Friend looked at the interim report of the all-party parliamentary group on British bioethanol, which proposes that E10 petrol should be introduced as standard in the UK, as it is in most parts of Europe, America and Australia? That would reduce carbon emissions from standard petrol by the equivalent of 700,000 cars; it would save jobs in the north-east of England, where the two British bioethanol plants are based; and it would be cleaner in terms of pollution. It would, of course, be a temporary measure while we introduce more electric cars, but is it not overdue?

[Chris Skidmore]

My right hon. and learned Friend has also raised that point with me in private, and I am happy to raise the issue of bioethanol with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has responsibility for agriculture. It is important to reflect that, as part of a grand challenge in our industrial strategy, we have set out a number of missions on the future of mobility and transport in our cities, including the reduction of congestion, the introduction of electric vehicles and the adaptation of battery technology. I was delighted to visit Warwick Manufacturing Group on Friday, to discuss the advances it has made with lithium batteries. We must do that because of the need to reduce not just carbon emissions but air pollution; we know that tens of thousands of people are literally dying as a result of air pollution in our streets and cities, so the impact we make today is not just for 2050 but for now.

Draft Higher Education (Monetary Penalties and Refusal to Renew an Access and Participation Plan) (England) Regulations 2019

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 General Committees

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

On penalties, does the Minister have any estimate of what the total take is likely to be in money terms? What happens to those penalties? Is that money to be lost to higher education, or does it stay in the sector? Will it go back to the Treasury?

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I think he might be. Suffice it to say that that deal has been rejected three times, on the first occasion by the largest margin by which a Government have ever been defeated in the known history of Parliament. Quite apart from the undesirability of what is in that deal, I think we should probably move on. I have a sixth sense that it will come back for fuller debate on another occasion.

The Minister made a very strong case for cross-border co-operation, for maintaining the regulation and for a mutual recognition agreement so that we can maintain protections for consumers and businesses. I hope she will confirm that when she responds to the debate.

I am not able to confirm with absolute certainty that the revocation will deliver what the Government intend it to do. We have to accept the Minister’s word that it will do so. I have no reason not to accept it, but I do not have the technical expertise. The papers in front of us do not allow me to say any more than that, so I have to put on the record my reservations and those of my party. As ever with the statutory instruments we are being asked to approve, there is no impact assessment. The lack of published consultation responses also makes it that much harder for us to analyse what we are being asked to approve.

Businesses and consumers need confidence and certainty. I note from the explanatory memorandum that a number of business organisations were consulted. Perhaps the Minister could provide more detail on what they said. She has done so on previous occasions, so I look forward to hearing what was said in those consultation discussions.

The regulations that we are being asked to revoke are designed to prevent discrimination based on location. They exist to stimulate the internal market of the European Union and to support the free movement of goods and of free trade through the digital sector. They address the possible restriction on competition between businesses across the European Union market and ensure that consumers have access to the best offers, prices and conditions of sale. They do not limit trade for consumers to goods and services in their own country—that is a very important distinction—and that is precisely what has happened since the regulations were introduced at the start of last year. They also prevent website redirection away from businesses that are not in the consumer’s member state.

If we leave with no deal, the draft regulations will revoke the geo-blocking regulation completely. No deal would end the protections for UK businesses and consumers, as they would not be protected in the European Union. The Minister set that point out very well in her opening remarks. As she said, retaining the regulation in the UK would mean that we could be blocked but would not be able to block against discriminatory practices from within the European Union. Those points are well made in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.4 makes the point that

“if we did not revoke the Geo-Blocking Regulation, UK traders would continue to have obligations to EU customers under the Regulation while UK customers are unlikely to receive any of its benefits.”

Paragraph 2.5 states:

“To avoid this asymmetry of enforcement obligations in the EU’s favour, we are revoking the…Regulation in the UK.”

I accept those points, which is why we will not oppose the revocation.

The revocation of the regulations would at least minimise discrimination, but that is a bare minimum and a low base from which to operate. It would be far better not to have to do this and to have mutual recognition after we leave the European Union and continue with an arrangement that protects our businesses and consumers against discrimination as far as possible.

The draft regulations are an example of what no deal means. After yesterday’s latest failure by Members from across the House—but from some parties in particular—to be prepared to find a compromise to avoid no deal, we are one day closer to the dire prospect of that outcome. Of course, the Government should have taken no deal off the table, so that MPs did not have to do so, to avoid what in all honesty are desperate, last-minute no-deal preparations. That is the only way to describe what we are being asked to do today, 10 days before a likely no-deal departure.

The CBI was one of the business organisations referred to as having been consulted. Although I do not have its response to the consultation—I hope to hear it shortly from the Minister—I do have what it wrote to the Prime Minister, in a joint letter with the TUC, about the consequences of no deal. Is it not refreshing to see the leaders of the employers’ largest representative organisation and the leaders of the workers’ representative organisation working so closely together, signing a joint letter to the Prime Minister? That is what leadership in this country looks like and it is a great shame that we have not seen more of it from politicians.

The joint letter makes it clear that no deal would be disastrous for the country—for businesses and for workers—and that also applies to the draft regulations, should they ever be needed. On a no-deal outcome, the CBI-TUC letter states:

“Firms and communities across the UK are not ready for this outcome. The shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come…avoiding no deal is paramount.”

They describe no deal as causing “reckless damage”—[Interruption.] It is a shame that those Members commenting from sedentary positions on the Government Benches did not support some of the alternative options available to us yesterday. The TUC and CBI call for a plan B, which has been rejected by those Members who have been heckling me for the past few seconds.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has just passed the Animal Welfare (Services Animals) Bill, which will give protection to police dogs and police animals.

[Bill Esterson]

I am delighted to welcome the passing of that Bill. I was not quite sure what that intervention was going to be about. I agree that it is an extremely welcome and important piece of legislation that has made progress in the other place.

The TUC and the CBI are calling for a plan B. I hope that, as we make further progress in finding alternatives tomorrow, we do that and avoid a no deal. If that is the case, the Minister will not have to invoke these regulations.

The revocation of the geo-blocking regulation is not the largest single impact of no deal; it is a small example of the consequences, and I hope it is not needed. I hope that the Minister and all hon. Members agree with that point.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister in addition to what I asked her earlier. I understand that there are businesses in the UK that currently use hosting services from EU providers. Can she reassure them about how that access will continue if the geo-blocking regulation is revoked in the event of no deal? The impact assessment takes a very narrow view and does not comment on the number of individuals using services from the EU in this way under the regulation. I hope that the Minister can give some sense of what the impact would be, what the likely outcome is, and how the Government propose to protect businesses in the event of no deal in this respect.

Consumers currently enjoy the ability to buy services and goods from across the EU. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government have assessed what the impact on them will be in relation to access to services and registration? Will businesses in this country be able to buy services from within the EU if the regulation is revoked?

I and other hon. Members have asked questions about the damage that no deal will do on a small scale through this one set of regulations. One way to express it is to say that these regulations show that the Government have failed to prepare; another is to say that they have not prepared because it simply is not possible to prepare for no deal. These regulations, like so much else that is going on at the moment, given the looming prospect of no deal, demonstrate that. We can overcome the danger of a disaster only by avoiding no deal. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will take note of that and will try to find alternatives. The Government’s deal will not go through, so an alternative needs to be found.

Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 General Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I could not possibly comment, but we are all Yorkshiremen, including you, Mr Davies—not that that would affect your chairing of the Committee.

From memory, the actual cost of the capacity for our constituents is about £2 a year on their bill. I am not making light of it, but for what we get from it as a country and for what suppliers get for their customers, I think it is good value for money. There have been power cuts in other countries—even in quite developed places such as California and Australia—where they did not have such a sophisticated system, so there is a risk. When I said it was for hon. Members on both sides to ensure capacity, I did not mean just members of this Committee; the whole of Parliament in 2013 realised that this was a good thing to do.

I will go into more detail, and if the hon. Gentleman then feels that I have not answered his questions I will be able to do so—it will be nearer lunch time, and he may feel that I have covered most of it.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it is one of the Government’s duties to ensure security for citizens? Energy security is a vital part of that, and if it costs £2, it is probably £2 well spent.

[Richard Harrington]

I agree, as I think most other people would, because generally the system works. To use the layman’s language I always use—being a Yorkshireman, I try to simplify things in a way so that I understand them; I cannot claim to have the technical expertise of the shadow Minister on this—the regulations propose a tweaking of something that works, rather than radical and complete change. I will make some progress, and if hon. Members would like to ask questions or intervene, they should obviously do so, subject to your largesse, Mr Davies.

The five changes in the draft instrument are essentially technical. They will improve fairness, ensure the competitiveness of auctions and provide important clarifications to scheme operations. The Department held a fairly lengthy public consultation on the changes and the majority of respondents agreed with them—more than 75%. I agree that it is important that people know how much the market costs, but if we did not have a capacity market and every individual had the choice of paying £2 or x pounds to make sure they do not have blackout periods, I am sure that most people would probably pay it anyway. It is not like that, but thinking about it in terms of what it means to customers and our constituents is right, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned. All the technical stuff we are here to discuss does not matter if in the end it boils down to continuity of supply at that price. He was absolutely right to mention that, as was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire.

We have the capacity market to ensure—as is the Government’s job—that we always have sufficient electricity capacity in Britain for the winter periods and for periods of exceptional demand. We need to give generators the confidence that they will receive the revenues they need to maintain, upgrade and refurbish their existing plants, and to finance and build new plants to come on stream as and when existing assets retire. They have to think ahead, and knowing that they are going to get these funds is part of their planning.

The capacity market also ensures that those who are able to shift demand for electricity away from periods of greater scarcity, without detriment to themselves and the wider economy, are incentivised to do so. It does so by offering capacity providers who are successful in these competitive auctions—there are two types; some bid for one year ahead and some for four years ahead—a steady, predictable revenue stream on which they can base their future investments. In return for those capacity payments, providers must meet their obligations to deliver electricity at times of system stress, or not deliver it if it is not needed, or face penalties.