Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

If I may say so, I think one can draw a conclusion from the fact that in their liaison with the Metropolitan police, the Cabinet Office has, according to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, satisfied her that an investigation should take place. That should give comfort, to those who might otherwise doubt the investigation, that it is a proper and due-process investigation.

As in all cases where due process should be followed in the interests of fairness, it would not be appropriate to presuppose any result of a police investigation—or, for that matter, of an independent Cabinet Office investigation. As I have already said, I would expect the findings to be published in due course.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that it is a long-standing convention in this House that when there are independent inquiries and investigations, they are allowed to run their course and that prejudgments are not made in this House? Given that that is the case and that it would be advisable for that convention to be carried on, does he also agree that we really need to concentrate on matters that really affect our constituents on a day-to-day basis—cost of living, energy prices and so on—as well as on the fact that 100,000 Russian troops are on the Ukrainian border, which threatens global instability?

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the pressing international situation, particularly as regards Ukraine and Russia. I know that the Prime Minister is focused on that matter.

I also understand the anxiety and indignation of many who are frustrated by the reports that have been emanating over the course of many weeks about alleged gatherings in the Downing Street area. The reality of the matter is that the Prime Minister is focused, as he has been focused, on delivering for this country as he has succeeded in delivering vaccines and on the manifesto commitments. He will continue that laser focus.

Loan Charge

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I welcome the return of this debate, which was so interestingly interrupted by rain—I think that is about the only matter raised for which I have not been blamed at some point, as it was an act of God. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) on securing the debate, and I thank all those who have participated, both today and last week.

Perhaps I can try to find the one element of consensus that unites Members on both sides of the House. Most speakers have referred to the fact that they have no time for aggressive and contrived tax avoidance, and they are right. Every amount of tax avoided in such a way means more tax for other taxpayers to find, or less funding for our vital public services.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mel Stride]

I am afraid I will not. I want to make progress, as there is a lot to cover and little time.

For the benefit of the House, let me set out the heart of how these schemes work, so that we are clear on that point. An employer can engage an employee and pay them in the normal way, by way of earnings, in which case national insurance for the employer and the employee is due. Income tax must also be paid by the employee. Alternatively, they can use a loan scheme, which generally works like this: instead of the employer paying the employee in the way I have described, money is sent out to a low or no-tax tax haven, and placed in a trust. That money then comes from the trust back to the United Kingdom, where it is treated as a loan, even though there is no intention of ever settling that loan or paying it off. Because that money it is treated as a loan, it is claimed that it does not incur any national insurance or income tax because it is not earnings.

When confronted with the reality of how these schemes work, most people would say that that is not right. That brings me on to one of the most commonly held misconceptions about these schemes and the loan charge, which is that the loan charge is retrospective. There was never a time in the history of our country where the model for payment that I have just outlined has ever been correct within the tax rules of any previous year. That is a simple fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I will come on, in the limited time I have, to deal with both employers and promoters, as those are very important aspects too.

When it comes to retrospection the other important point is that, contrary to the suggestion many right hon. and hon. Members have made that this issue has just suddenly appeared and HMRC has just started to address these scheme, it has been taken through the courts over countless years. In 2004, Dawn Primarolo, who was referred to earlier in this debate, was instrumental in bringing in the DOTAS legislation upon which recent cases have been concluded in HMRC’s favour. There has been a concerted effort by HMRC over many, many years to clamp down on these particular arrangements.

Some of the other misinformation includes the idea that thousands upon thousands of taxpayers are about to be made bankrupt. HMRC very, very rarely has a situation where somebody is placed in bankruptcy. That is not right for the individual and it is not right for our tax collecting authority. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) gave several examples last week of where he had accompanied his constituents and got involved with their tax affairs and their dealings with HMRC. In each case, as he was able to state, a fair and reasonable settlement was entered into. That is the main thrust of HMRC’s approach.

It has also been suggested that people will lose their home as a consequence of the loan charge. It could not be clearer: HMRC has publicly stated that nobody will lose their primary residence as a consequence of settling their loan charge liability. On the point my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) raised about employers and individuals, it has been assumed widely in this debate that the vast majority of those impacted by these measures are individuals. That is not the case. Of the 6,000 settlements to date and the £1 billion that has been brought in, 85% by value has come from employers, not employees. In the first instance, HMRC will go to the employer, not the employee.

The issue of promoters is extremely important and, quite rightly, a number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised it. I want to make it clear that HMRC is cracking down on the unscrupulous promoters who sell these schemes. In fact, it is currently investigating more than 100 promoters and others involved in the promotion of tax avoidance. That includes promoters of disguised remuneration schemes. In recent years, HMRC has also litigated a number of cases of failure to disclose under DOTAS, which came in in 2004—not recently—and several recent decisions in cases on disguised remuneration have been found in HMRC’s favour. HMRC has also made successful complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority in relation to DR schemes to stop promoters making misleading claims about the arrangements they are selling. Just two weeks ago, HMRC announced that it had won a legal case against a loan scheme avoidance promoter, Hyrax Resourcing, which will help HMRC to collect over £40 million in unpaid tax. For the reasons I have set out, it would not be right to delay these arrangements.

Let me turn now to two particularly important issues that many Members have raised, first on the affordability of payment arrangements. Let me be very clear: it is never the intention of HMRC to bankrupt anyone who comes forward in good faith to agree a manageable payment plan. I can confirm that HMRC is authorised to agree tailored repayment plans for those affected by the loan charge based on ability to pay. Where tax is payable under self-assessment, payment will of course not be due until January 2020. There is also no maximum repayment period, and plans of 10 years or more can be put in place where required. Further, I can announce today that HMRC is now forming a dedicated team focused solely on agreeing these manageable payment arrangements for those due to pay the tax they owe by way of the loan charge.

[Mr Vara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mel Stride]

I have no time, I’m sorry.

The second very important matter I would like to address is the interaction between vulnerable people and HMRC regarding disguised remuneration and the loan charge, including where there are mental health issues. Let me make it clear that wherever HMRC is engaging with vulnerable people, it will do everything it can to ensure that they have all the support they need. This support includes a helpline that is dedicated solely to looking after loan charge customers, with a team fully trained to identify those who may be vulnerable and to provide appropriate support. Where necessary, HMRC will always refer individuals to the right external sources of support.

Exiting the EU: Costs

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We absolutely want to secure movement on to the next stage of the negotiations. That is very important. Ultimately, it takes the UK and the EU27 to agree on that. It would be wrong to take the approach of the Opposition and say that we would agree to any deal, regardless of what it was. We have to look at and prepare for all eventualities.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the message to the doom-mongers must be that the British public have given their verdict and expect Parliament to deliver? The doom-mongers should recognise that we are the fifth strongest economy in the world and that our population is significantly greater than that of 15 EU countries put together. It is high time that they started talking Britain up, rather than talking it down.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition refuse to see any of the positive things that are happening in our country, whether it is the lowest youth unemployment rate for over 13 years or the highest number of new start-ups this country has ever seen. Great things are happening, so let us see a bit more optimism from the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the critical importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. We have more than 5 million small businesses in our country, and they are right at the heart of generating the wealth that generates the taxes that support the public services we all wish to see thriving. I have already explained that we are working closely with the Office of Tax Simplification to make sure that, wherever possible, the Government get out of the way of business, rather than standing in its way.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

6. What progress he has made on closing the gender pay gap in the public sector.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

The gender pay gap in the public sector is 18.3%, which is a record low, and this compares to 24.5% in the private sector.

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. Will she explain how the new duty introduced by this Government, requiring public sector bodies to publish the differences between male and female pay, will support the trend of an ever-reducing gender pay gap, which is at a record low?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The new duty we have introduced will mean more transparency, so we will be able to find out where the particular issues are in the public sector. Are there, for example, occupations such as engineering that are well paid and that women are less likely to go into, and what can we do to encourage women to apply for roles in them?

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later, Mr Flello—you have very good eyesight and, well, you have your glasses on anyway.

Another point for hon. Members to think hard about is that if we were sitting down at the other end of the building, the 240 or so MPs who now have offices in the historic Palace would by then have their offices in Richmond House—quite some distance from where people intend us to sit. Most importantly, however, we would either have to walk along a corridor specially created as some kind of bubble for us while work was going on all around, including the removal of asbestos—a risk in itself—or, alternatively, walk outside along the pavement; 650 or 600 MPs walking in a hurry along the pavement at known times of day for votes is a security risk that I would not be prepared to countenance.

For all such reasons, that proposal simply does not wash. The truth is that the Chambers are not hermetically sealed units. They rely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside said, on services from the rest of the building. Both the Chambers themselves will have to be closed, and the cost of temporary mechanical and electrical services would run into millions of unnecessary taxpayer pounds.

People also ask, “What about Westminster Hall?” Personally, I have a romantic attachment to Westminster Hall: I like the idea of sitting in the Hall where Richard II was removed as King by Henry IV in the shortest ever Parliament, which lasted one day. We could sit back and take inspiration from the angels carved on the ceiling. The Committee looked at the suggestion very seriously, but the problem is that the floor is not as solid as it looks. It is not sitting on the ground; the flagstones actually sit on a pillared grid, which simply could not take the weight of the large construction necessary to sit 600 or 650 MPs, members of the press and public, and all the other paraphernalia of the Chamber. In addition, such a Chamber would have to be heated, and all the advice we had from restorers and people who know about ancient buildings and historic wooden artefacts is that that would pose a risk to the ceiling that simply could not be countenanced. The roof of Westminster Hall is one of the most beautiful and precious things on the whole parliamentary estate, so that is not an option.

Some people have said—one Conservative Member present has said this to me several times: “You did not really look at the option of our staying in at all.” Yes, I am looking at the hon. Gentleman—or he is looking at me—

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

North West Cambridgeshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I wish to take issue with the argument in the Joint Committee’s report that it would cost £3.5 billion to decant and that that would be the cheaper option. I start by pointing to the opening page of the summary, which says in the third paragraph:

“However, there is significantly more work to be done by professionals before budgets can be set, buildings are vacated and works can commence.”

I deeply regret that that caveat is not being emphasised a lot more—indeed, it has not been mentioned by anyone in today’s debate.

It is disingenuous to say that leaving here would cost £3.5 billion and be the cheaper option. That figure does not take account of the fact that some £600 million would be spent until 2023 when the full decant would take place. Nor does it take account of the fact that if we fully decant, there would be rental costs for the offices and space that would be needed outside this building. The figure does not show up in the costing on page 39 of the report. It simply says that professional advice will be required. We are talking about millions and millions of pounds of rental costs that are not accounted for.

There is an issue with security costs. If the peers go to the QEII centre, that will mean additional security. A full decant would require additional space outside the Palace of Westminster. Those security costs have not been factored in either—again, it would be serious millions of pounds. The tourism industry was mentioned. If the QEII building closed, that would affect the conferences normally held there, which attract significant sums of money to the local economy; I have heard that it would affect our local economy by some £200 million. Nearby hotels are worried because they will not be able to let out their rooms to people who go to conferences at the centre. There will be an impact on restaurants and taxis.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that if there were a rolling programme of works and we stayed here, that would be £900 million more expensive. I gently suggest that my figures come to a whole lot more than £900 million; had they been factored into the calculations in the report, we might be having a different debate.

The argument that we must move out is simply not the only one in town. Work is being done at Buckingham Palace. It has 100 miles of cables and 20 miles of pipes, yet the work will carry on while Her Majesty stays there with the entire royal household. Work will be done in segments. During the fire at Windsor Castle in 2002, 20% of it was burned down, yet Her Majesty and the royal household continued to operate from there. They did not have to move out.

As for the advice sought from experts, let us be clear: one does not need to be an expert to work out that the work will be easier if everyone leaves the place of work. That is a given, but the point is that this is no ordinary building. It is the seat of Government, and we have to take account of that fact. At the time of Brexit, when we seek to make new friends overseas and secure favourable trade agreements, do we really want to convey the image of a temporary building in the courtyard of another Government building? We have to take into account the soft-sell power of the iconic building that is Parliament. I put it gently to hon. Members that the selling power of this building far exceeds any figures for costs that have been produced here. As we have been told, it is an iconic building.

Furthermore, at a time of austerity when we are writing to our constituents and saying that they cannot have an additional few pounds for whatever they are seeking money for, do we really want to go to the public and say that, nevertheless, we want to spend billions of pounds on our place of work? I do not think that in the present economic climate that is sustainable.

The question that should have been put to the experts is not what the best way of working from here is, because the best answer is obviously that we should all clear out. What they should have been told was, “This is Parliament—the seat of Government. Go away and work out a plan for how we can continue to operate on this eight-acre site.” I can guarantee that they would have come up with a proposal had they been given that option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

We need to cover the issue that the ongoing maintenance cost the taxpayer £50 million last year. All told, some 40% of the mechanical and engineering systems will be at an unacceptably high risk of failure by 2020, and five years after that the figure will have risen to 50%. In other words, we are just eight years away from being in a situation in which half the Palace’s systems are so dilapidated that they could cause a major emergency that stops Parliament’s work and forces our evacuation without warning, perhaps overnight. For all those reasons, it is clear that we cannot pass the buck any longer.

[Mr Vara]

The Minister has emphasised how urgent it is that we get the work done. Does he therefore agree that the work should commence immediately, rather than waiting for six years, as page 91 of the report says? It states that a full decant will take place in six years’ time.

[Michael Ellis]

It is fair to point out, as was mentioned, that a great deal of work is ongoing while Parliament sits, including, for example, repairs to the roof and other essential items of maintenance. That is a monumental undertaking, and a great deal of work undoubtedly needs to be done in order to set that into train.

We have heard what the Joint Committee has recommended: that a full decant is the cheapest, quickest and lowest-risk option. It also proposes the establishment of a delivery authority, overseen by a sponsor board, which would first be established in shadow form to draw up budgets and a business case, before a final vote in both Houses to approve the plans.

The Government have undertaken to provide time for a full debate and vote in due course on the Committee’s report. The hon. Member for Rhondda will recollect from his duties in this place that time is always at a premium for business managers, particularly so the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend knows that time is always a precious commodity in this House. Business managers are always under time pressure, now more than ever, but the matter is being given very careful consideration.

[Mr Vara]

The Minister is being generous with his limited time. He said that alternative proposals are being considered by officials. Given that the report took a considerable amount of time to produce, has huge caveats in it and says that professional advice is still needed for costing purposes, I put on record that, whatever decisions the officials come to, it is assumed that they will have the usual caveats and that we will not be able to rely on those figures to the extent that it is hoped.

[Michael Ellis]

Once an initial decision has been taken in response to the Joint Committee’s recommendations, focus will shift to the details of developing plans for how the work should be done. However, it is hard for detailed scrutiny to take place now because line-by-line budgets have not been prepared, and cannot be yet. That can happen only when the delivery authority has completed its necessary preparation work.

The Joint Committee was clear that it could not provide detailed budgets. Only establishing a shadow delivery authority will allow a true picture of the costs to emerge, before Members of Parliament and peers of the realm have the final say. The Committee’s headline figures for the cost of the three options under consideration range from £3.52 billion to £5.67 billion—a difference of £2.15 billion—but everyone following the debate should be clear that those are preliminary estimates and not guaranteed costs.

Whatever the differences in approach, clearly no one disputes that we must act to preserve this historic building. On that we have no choice. As part of a UNESCO world heritage site, the Palace simply cannot be allowed to fall into terminal disrepair. Doing nothing is not an option. What happens is up to the House, and ultimately it will be for Members of both Houses to decide on the right way forward. The large sums of money involved and the importance of this building to our nation’s prestige mean great care is needed when weighing up the options.

It is clear from the speeches we have heard that the responsibility of getting the decision right as custodians of this place weighs heavily on all Members of the House. The Government, for our part, will work with Parliament to ensure that whatever is decided is delivered in the right way to preserve this place for the country and for future generations.

Solar Power and Feed-in Tariffs

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

May I start by apologising on behalf of the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who, for reasons I have explained to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), is unable to be here today?

May I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate? He has a long-standing interest in the subject and has forcefully and passionately put on record his views. I thank other Members who have taken the trouble to come to the debate, including the hon. Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). I am grateful to everybody for having come along today and made this an interesting debate.

I have certainly taken on board what the hon. Member for Stockton North has said and I will endeavour to reply as best I can to the points that have been raised by him and others. To the extent that time limitations and other factors do not allow me comprehensively to reply now, I am more than happy to ensure that I or my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden give a proper reply subsequently.

The coalition Government are committed to renewables, particularly to meeting our European Union target of ensuring that 15% of all energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. The spending review shows that we are delivering on being the “greenest Government ever” and that we delivered an excellent settlement for renewables, which underlines the priority that the sector constitutes for the Government. Support for large-scale renewable electricity under the renewables obligation will be maintained over the spending review period, with the budget due to rise to £3.2 billion by 2014-15.

Heat makes up 49% of UK greenhouse gas emissions. It has long been neglected and requires significant investment.

[Ian Lucas]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable man, is responding to the debate, and I hope that we will see some sense on this issue. I have campaigned on it for many years, but, for a long time, I did not get a lot of sense from the Government of the day. However, has he seen the article in today’s Financial Times about private investment in clean energy plunging in 2010? Is he not concerned by the reaction of investors, including Sharp in my constituency, to the announcement, which will strangle private, rather than public, investment?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I remind everyone that we are in difficult economic times. Every area has to be looked at, including this one, where the review has been brought forward. We are keen to emphasise that there is no cut-off up to 50 kW. That will cover the majority of the domestic market, which we are keen to protect. I hear what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stockton North have to say, but I am keen to emphasise that there is a cut-off point, which will ensure that, to a large extent, the domestic market is protected.

The renewable heat incentive, which will go ahead in 2011, represents more than £850 million of investment over the spending review period. That will drive a more than tenfold increase of renewable heat over the coming decade, shifting renewable heat from a fringe industry firmly into the mainstream. To prioritise those critical projects, we have needed to take hard decisions, reducing budgets to focus on the most important, and looking to reduce the burden on the bill payer. We will save money on support for small-scale electricity through feed-in tariffs, to prioritise the most cost-effective technologies and maximise value for money.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I understand the difficulty with pressures on budgets and the need to get the best return for the taxpayer. Surely the larger-scale schemes offer the better return to the taxpayer in terms of renewable energy produced and cost to install. Surely we should be considering those as a priority, perhaps at the cost of the domestic schemes.

[Mr Vara]

Clearly, many will argue that the domestic market has a priority; others will argue in the same way as my hon. Friend. A decision has been taken, though clearly this will be reviewed regularly. It is not definitive, it is an ongoing matter.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend consider asking Ministers whether they would contemplate allowing the same feed-in tariffs to community buildings, including sports clubs and other local organisations, rather than large-scale commercial manufacturing of solar power?

[Mr Vara]

I am more than happy to pass that on to the relevant Minister. I hope colleagues will forgive me: I have about eight minutes and I wish to make progress.

The coalition is determined to drive a step change in ambition for the deployment of decentralised renewables and clean microgeneration technologies. As part of that, we are fully committed to feed-in tariffs for small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation. To meet our 2020 and longer-term targets we need to make the best use of all technologies that deliver renewables. Solar photovoltaic is part of the total picture. We expect that it will deliver a relatively small proportion of the overall total, but it can make a real contribution, especially at the household and community scale.

Solar PV has the advantage of being the only renewable technology that can be delivered easily at scale in the domestic context. It can be deployed quickly and does not have the disadvantages of noise and other local impacts, and at the small end of the scale does not need complex and expensive grid connections. Through permitted development rights, microgen-scale solar PV does not need planning permission. It can provide a range of benefits to the wider green agenda by engaging households and communities in the energy that they consume, and taking action to reduce their carbon footprint. Solar PV can work hand in hand with other initiatives, including the green deal.

It is important to remember that solar PV can be deployed on a range of scales. That can be small systems of 2.5 kW on domestic roofs that will provide a typical household with about half its electricity needs, through community scale schemes on school and hospital roofs of 10s of kW, to industrial scale schemes of several megawatts in fields or on warehouse or factory roofs. We need to question whether all those types of installation are appropriate for bill payers’ support at the current level of technological development. That is why we have launched the comprehensive and fast-track reviews of the FITs scheme.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned sports complexes, as I did. There is one in my constituency that is considerably bigger than the Government want to support in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman not have sympathy for that sort of local sports organisation, which could make a major contribution to the community and green energy?

[Mr Vara]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would like to think that he did not really mean to say that the Government are not supporting it. The Government are supporting it, but have to take a decision at the moment to have the cut-off point at 50 kW. That will clearly be reviewed on a regular basis, because that is the way forward. We recognise that, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, we have constraints given the current economic climate.

The first anniversary of the FITs scheme is fast approaching and we have been pleased with the success to date, which has seen more than 20,000 PV installations registered for FITs. When the FITs scheme was introduced by the previous Administration, it was made clear that all aspects of the scheme, including tariff levels, would be subject to periodic reviews and that, if necessary, early reviews could take place. I would add that the previous Administration were able to pass the measure because it was a cross-party matter, which had the support of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

“Feed-in tariffs: Government’s Response to the Summer 2009 Consultation” made that clear, and also provided examples of what reviews would consider. The context for the first review of FITs was set by last year’s spending review. The review made it clear that there are spending parameters within which the FITs scheme must operate. Put simply, there is no blank cheque for FITs. Particularly in the current climate, it is crucial that we take a more responsible and efficient approach to public subsidy to ensure that consumers receive value for money and new investors are not over-rewarded with public subsidy.

At the time of the spending review, we said that the first review of FITs would take place as planned in 2012, taking effect in 2013, unless higher than expected deployment triggered an early review. However, since then we have become increasingly concerned about the risk that larger-scale solar PV, unforeseen by the modelling undertaken prior to the start of the FITs scheme, could lead to long-term pressure on FITs costs. That risk provides a trigger consistent with the statements made at the time of the spending review.

Therefore, last month the Secretary of State announced the start of the first comprehensive review of FITs. As well as allowing the concerns mentioned to be addressed, bringing forward the review of FITs also allows for industry to be provided with certainty, sooner rather than later, about how the savings committed to as part of the spending review will be delivered. Many in industry have been pressing for that.

In the first scheme review, we want to secure the continued success of FITs, through sustainable growth rather than boom and bust. That means enabling industry to grow smoothly within the spending parameters confirmed by the spending review. Starting the review now provides us with a better chance of delivering the aim than allowing unsustainable growth, which might have to be reined in dramatically in the future. Furthermore, by fast-tracking consideration of solar PV larger than 50 kW, and farm-scale anaerobic digestion, we can address urgent concerns that have arisen.

The fast-track review is looking at FITs for solar PV above the microgeneration threshold of 50 kW. Solar PV mocrogeneration of up to and including 50 kW is not within the scope of the fast-track review and is therefore not being considered by this consultation, but will be considered as part of the comprehensive review.

I am mindful that time is pressing. I say in conclusion regarding the three points raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North that we believe that confidence is important, and we will continue to monitor. We firmly believe that by protecting the domestic market, confidence has not been damaged. On a long-term basis, this is the way forward, and we will continue to monitor. In response to whether the Government will listen, of course we will listen. We have listened today and will continue to do so. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton North and all other hon. Members and hon. Friends who have taken the time to make their voices heard.