Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

We are warned by the Secretary of State that we are in a “pre-war world”, yet we do not have sufficient training and resources to undertake high-intensity warfighting, and we do not have the equipment and stockpiles for our forces to survive a prolonged campaign. It has been 14 years; when will this be put right?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I appreciate the Minister’s earlier answer, but when Royal British Legion Industries says that 6,000 veterans are homeless or in danger of becoming so, is there a need for more urgent intervention, or is the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs right to hail getting 500 off the streets as a triumph?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Ministry of Defence on its achievements with the roll-out so far, although it is probably fair to acknowledge that there is still some way to go. Is it not quite surprising that the veteran ID card cannot be used for the purpose of ID in a UK election? When does the Minister hope to put that right?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The number of veterans claiming welfare benefits is rising steadily, and more than 52,000 are now in receipt of universal credit. Does the Minister find that a cause for celebration or concern?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Centre for Military Women’s Research has identified numerous gaps in our understanding of women’s experiences in the military, the consequent problems they face and the reluctance to pursue research on those matters. Is it right to presume that the women veterans’ strategy—I hear what the Minister says about his genuine concern on these matters—will be his main vehicle for ensuring that we tackle those issues?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I spent the recess studying the veterans strategy action plan with its 60-odd commitments and thinking about the views of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on what he calls the “lack of political horsepower”. Why is it, after 14 years and so many commitments, that 76.4% of veterans are so dissatisfied with the compensation scheme for illnesses and injuries, and why are 500 veteran households declared homeless every three months, as we have heard? Is there still a lack of political horsepower or is there a need for better co-ordination between the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not being funny, but I have a whole list of questions to get through. We have to have shorter questions—that was very long. I think the Minister got the gist of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Emma Hardy—not here.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

22. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the number of apprenticeship starts in the 2022-23 academic year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately, we now have to come to topicals—15 minutes late.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities. [R]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately, we do finish at quarter past 12, so I will start topical questions, slightly late, with Steve McCabe.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Areas with Additional Public Health Restrictions: Economic Support

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Antony Higginbotham—not here.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

There are 660 closed and shuttered nightclubs and live entertainment venues across the west midlands. I understand that they are not eligible for any help from the local restrictions support grant. Why not?

Coronavirus

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Chorley A&E may be able to help you with that, Secretary of State.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

What is the current level of funding for research projects into the long-term effects of covid-19 funded from the National Institute for Health Research, in which I think the Government claim to put £1 billion?

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The purpose of the Bill, in facilitating the roll-out of smart meters, is to create a more energy-efficient economy, which should be reflected in cost savings for families, individuals and businesses. If that was not to be realised through the smart grid, that would be very disappointing.

There is so much in the future in terms of the changes we are seeing in the economy. I think of ultra-low emission vehicles, where there will be a necessity for smart meters and the smart grid for us to cope with the increased load on the grid. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that somewhere in the not-too-distant future is the promise of an energy market that is more competitive and more responsive to its customers’ energy requirements.

Mass usage of ultra-low emission electric vehicles is inevitable. We will get to a tipping point with those vehicles, on account of the cost per unit, improvements in battery technology and the visible availability of the necessary infrastructure for charging at home and recharging away from home. All those things will create new demands on the grid, and all the flexibilities we will need to meet those demands depend on the smart grid and smart meters. Things such as new tariffs, variable tariffs and smart devices that can interact on the basis of the smart grid will all be a feature of the future.

However, there are things referenced in the new clauses and amendments that concern me. We heard evidence in the Public Bill Committee from Dr Richard Fitton of the University of Salford, who is responsible for a task group for the International Energy Agency on the use of smart meter data for determining the energy efficiency of properties. He made the point that for consumers to be fully engaged with smart meters, they need to be able to log on to the smart meter and connect it to smart devices in and around the home. He described the frustration that he and his team of experts have had in being able to make that connection happen. He said:

“a magic black box called the consumer access device…streams real-time data to things such as smart appliances and smart heating systems for homes.”––[Official Report, Smart Meters Public Bill Committee, 21 November 2017; c. 48, Q94.]

He went on to say that neither he nor any of his colleagues had ever been successful at connecting SMETS 2 meters to those devices. That is a concern, but it is not directly related to the amendments, so I will return to them.

There is evidence about the impact of smart meters on consumer behaviour. The literature produced by the Department talks about how these meters will facilitate switching. In fact, all the evidence that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Public Bill Committee received suggests that smart meters probably will not have a direct impact on the rate of switching in the energy market. It should change consumers’ behaviour by piquing natural curiosity. When we first get a smart meter and have an in-home display, we can see how the energy usage in our home is affected by using different appliances around the house. That is very interesting and makes us aware of which appliances are the most energy-greedy, which could lead to a change of behaviour.

I would like to make some other points on energy awareness and my concerns that relate to new clause 4, with which I am broadly sympathetic but will not vote for. Even though I have sat through the Public Bill Committee and all the Bill’s stages, I am still not clear exactly what the Government’s objective ultimately is. They say they will make an offer of a smart meter to every consumer by 2020. That seems a rather fuzzy objective. How do we define what it means to make an offer? We could say that by sending out an email, letter or brochure to every household, every energy retailer has fulfilled its obligation to make the offer. I do not think that is really what the Government intend. Given the importance of smart meter installation to the creation of a smart grid, I would think the Government’s objective is in fact to get smart meters into a very high percentage of the total number of properties by 2020, but that is unstated, as far as I am aware. I would be delighted to be put right by the Minister on that.

I am aware, as a listener of commercial radio and television and a reader of the press, that there is currently a high-intensity programme going on to raise awareness among consumers about the availability of smart meters upon request. However, I question whether the case for the importance of smart meters has been well made.

Despite the fact that this subject could sound quite boring, it is actually very interesting, because this infrastructure is the basis for the fourth industrial revolution that will be seen in the homes of our countrymen and women. Given the current level of roll-out and the state of readiness of installation teams, it is highly likely that the Government can achieve their objective of offering smart meters to everyone, but it is highly unlikely that we will achieve anything like 100% installation of smart meters in all possible premises.

So far, somewhere between 8 million and 10 million SMETS 1 meters have been installed. I mention that estimated range because I am not sure what the recent figure is, and the update we received did not have a specific number. I think that it has been proved beyond any doubt that, as things stand, SMETS 1 meters are not interoperable. In other words, they do not communicate with any other supplier than the one that installed them; nor are they capable of sending data to the DCC at present. That is my understanding.

In the Public Bill Committee, we heard evidence about whether SMETS 1 meters could be made interoperable. The burden of evidence seems to be that without some sort of adjustment or update, SMETS 1 meters are not interoperable. That is my experience, which I have related before in a variety of settings, as someone who installed a smart meter and then tried to switch.

I have questions about SMETS 1 meters. How easy will it be to upgrade them at the appropriate time, so that we have the functionality of the new SMETS 2 meters? If they can be upgraded to the same functionality and interoperability, do we need to have SMETS 2 meters? How will SMETS 1 meters be upgraded and when?

There are many interesting points that have been covered by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and that I have tried to make in relation to the Bill. There are questions that, if answered by the Minister, will facilitate this programme, which I completely acknowledge is of vital strategic importance to the future economy that the Government are trying to build.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Steve McCabe.

[Steve McCabe]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. I had not realised that the SNP spokesperson wanted to come in. It has been so long, we got lost somewhere along the way.

NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we can spot that the hon. Lady has just given way to a Government Member and now she is giving way to an Opposition Member. We do not need the cheering to go with it.

[Steve McCabe]

I want to check this with my hon. Friend. The last time I checked, Simon Stevens had said that STPs were designed to make up the £22 billion shortfall that the Government are not prepared to put in. Is that not the case?

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend plans to serve on the Bill Committee, but given his knowledge and expertise I think that that would be a great advantage to us. Is not the challenge to try to find something better than the original Government proposals and that addresses the need for the public to feel that they have recall power while protecting people from the political risks of the amendments? Is not the challenge to find something in the middle, perhaps better defining the kinds of offences that would lead to recall—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Steve McCabe]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one difficulty with this proposal is shown in the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies? Robert Joyce, the senior research economist there, says:

“The policy is not a general recognition of marriage in the income tax system”.

So the argument that has been made by the Government is false, in the sense that it gives an impression about this policy which is not actually true. He goes on to say that

“it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an income tax system which makes some people worse off after a pay rise has something wrong with it.”

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we need shorter interventions rather than speeches—I would sooner save your voice for later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

Hang on, you have to wait until you are invited.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not having two Members on their feet. Let us see if I can help—Mr McCabe, are you giving way?

[Steve McCabe]

I think I will give the hon. Lady her chance.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Steve McCabe and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the contents of the hon. Lady’s blog are germane to the debate, is it not a requirement that the House should have access to it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Unfortunately, the blog is not a document, so that is not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, whether the best symbol of a Government’s faith in civil liberties is their support for a phone hacker in No. 10 and a Minister who spies on his own colleagues and friends—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) should carry on with the debate on the new clause.